r 



THE 



EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY 



OF THC 



CHRIStlAN rev: 



?Y THE REV. THOMAS CHALMERS. 



HARTFORD : 

PUBLISHED BT SUELD0J^!3 OOODMICB. 
1816. 



m^B BIVBABDB, Pni9TEB— UIBSXETOWir. 



\k 



CHRISTIANITY &e. 



1. We do not propose in this article to enter into 
the history of the Christian rehgion or into its mo- 
raUty or doctrines ; but to confine ourselves to what 
have been called the Evidences of Christianity ; or 
to exhibit a general view of those arguments, which 
go to prove that the New Testament is the authen- 
tic record of an actual communication from God 
' mm. 

2u VVerea verbal communication to come to us 

'^'^^ li person at a distance, there are two ways in 

we might try to satisfy ourselves, that this 

true communication, and that there was no 

mposition in the affair. We might either sit in 

examination upon the substance of the message; 

and then from what we knew of the person from 

whom it professed to come, judge whether it was 

probable that such a message would be sent by him ; 

or we may sit in examination upon the «redibility 

of the messengers. 

3. It is evident, that, in carrying on the first ex- 
amination we might be subject to very great un- 
certainty. The professed author of the communi- 
cation m question may live at such a distance from 
^iB, tliat we may never have it in our power to veri* 
1# 



fy his message by any personal conversation with 
him. We may be so far ignorant of his character 
and designs, as to be unquahfied to judge of the kind 
of communication that should proceed from him* 
To estimate aright the probable authenticity of the 
message from what we know of its author, would 
require an acquaintance with his plans, and views, 
and circumstances, of which we may not be in 
possession. We may bring the greatest degree of 
sagacity to this investigation ; but then the highest 
gagacity is of no avail, when there is an insuffi- 
ciency of data Our ingenuity may be unbounded 5 
but then we may want the materials. The prin- 
ciple which we assume may be untrue in itself, and 
therefore might be fallacious in its apphcation. 

4. Thus we may derive very htlle light from our 
first argument. But there is still a second in re-^ 
serve, — the credibility of the messengers. We may 
be no judges of the kind of communication which 
is natural, or hkely to proceed from a person with 
>vhom we are but imperfectly acquainted ; but we 
may be very competent judges of the degree of 
faith that is to be reposed in the bearers of that 
communication. We may know and appreciate the 
natural signs of veracity. There is a tone and a 
manner characteristic of honesty, which may be 
both intelligible and convincing. There may be a 
concurrence of several messengers. There may be 
their substantial agreement. There may be the 
total want of any thing like concert or collusion 
among tbiCm, There may be tlieir determined and 
n-upiliTiOus perseverance, in spite of all the incre- 
' '1 tv f^i'd all the opposition which they meet with. 
'■'uc' s h'ect of the communication may be most 
ji\'':^ciiui.le to us: and we be so unreasonable, as 



to wreak our unpleasant feelings upon the bearers 
of it. In this way, they may not only have no 
earthly interest to deceive us, but have the strongest 
inducement possible to abstain from insisting^ upon 
that message which they were charged to deliver. 
Last of all, as the conclusive seal of their authen- 
ticity, they may all agree in giving us a watchword, 
which we previously knew could be given by none 
but their master ; and which none but his messen- 
gers could ever obtain the possession of. In this 
way, unfruitful as all our efforts may have been upon 
the first subject of examination, we may derive from 
the second the most decisive evidence, that the 
message in question is a real message, and was ac- 
tually transmitted to us by its professed author. 

5. Now, this consideration applies in all its parts 
to a message from God. The argument for the 
truth of this message resolves itself into the same 
two topics of examination. We may sit. in judge- 
ment upon the subject of the message 5 or we may 
sit in judgment upon the credibility of its bearers. 

6. The first forms a great part of that argumerst 
for the truth of the Christian religion, which comes 
under the head of its internal evidences. The sub- 
stance of the message is neither more nor less than 
that particular scheme of the divine economy which 
is revealed to us in the New Testament; and the 
point of inquiry is, whether this scheme be consis- 
tent with that knowledge of God and his attributes 
which we are previously in possession of. 

7. It appears to us, that no effectual argument 
can be founded upon this consideration We are 
not enough acquainted with the designs or charac- 
ter of the being from whom the message professes 
to have come. Were the author of the message 



8 

some distant and unknown individual of our owu 
species, we would scarcely be entitled to found an 
argument \ipon any comparison of ours, betwixt 
the import of the message and the character of 
tlie mdividual, even though we had our general ex- 
perience of human nature to help us in the specu- 
lation. Nowj of the mvisible God, we have no 
experience whatever. We are still further removed 
from all direct and personal observation of him 
or of his counsels. Whether we think of the eter- 
nity of his government, or the mighty range of its 
influence over the wide departments of nature and 
of ])rovidence, he stands at such a distance from 
us, as to make the management of h^ empire a 
subject inaccessible to all our faculties. 

8. It is evident, however, that this does not apply 
to the second topic of examination. The bearers 
of the message were beings like ourselves ; and we 
can appl^ our safe and certain experience of man 
to their conduct and their testimony. We know 
too little of God, to found any argument upon the 
coincidence which w^e conceive to exist betwixt the 
subject of the message and our previous conceptions 
of its author. But we may know enough of man 
to pronounce upon the credibiHty of the messen- 
gers. Had they the manner and physiognomy of 
honest men ? Was their testimony resisted, and did 
they persevere in it ? Had they any mterest in fab- 
ricating the message 5 or did they suffer in conse- 
quence of this perseverance? Did they suffer to 
such a degree as to constitute a satisfying pledge of 
their integrity ? Was there more than one messen- 
ger, and did they agree as to the substance of that 
communication which they made to the world? 
JPid thej exhibit any special mark of their office 



m the messengers of God ; such a mark as none 
but God could give, and none but his approved mes- 
sengers could obtain the possession of ? Was this 
mark the power of working miracles ; and were 
these miracles so obviously addressed to the senses, 
as to leave no suspicion of deceit behind them? 
These are questions which we feel our competency 
to take up, and to decide upon. They lie within 
the legitimate boundaries of human observation : 
and upon the solution of these do we rest the ques- 
tion of the truth of the Christian religion. 

9. This, then, is the state of the question with 
those to whom the message was originally address*^ 
jed. They had personal access to the messengers ; 
and the evidences of their veracity lay before them. 
They were the eye and ear-witnesses of those facts, 
which occurred at the commencement of the Chi s* 
tian rehgion, and upon which its credibihty rests. 
What met their observation must have been enough 
to satisfy them 5 but we live at the distance of nearly 
2000 years, and is there enough to satisfy us? 
Those facts which constitute the evidence for Chri^^ 
tianity, might have been credible and convincing to 
them, if they reaJly saw them ; but is there any way 
by which they can be rendered credible and con- 
vincing to us, who only read of them ? What is the 
expedient by which the knowledge and belief of the 
men of other times can be transmitted to posterity ? 
Can we distinguish between a corrupt and a faithful 
transmission? Have we evidence before us, by 
which we can ascertain what was the belief of those 
to whom the message was first communicated? 
And can the belief wh'ch existed in their minds be 
derived to ours, by our sitting in judgment upon th^ 
reasons which produced it ? 



10 

10. The surest way in which the belief and 
knowledge of the men of former ages can be trans- 
mitted to their descendants, is through the medium 
of written testimony ; and it is fortunate for us that 
the records of the Christian religion are not the 
only historical documents which have come down 
to us. A great variety of information has come 
idown to us in this way; and a great part of that 
information is as firmly believed and as confidently 
proceeded upon, as if the thing narrated had hap- 
pened within the limits of our eye sight. No man 
doubts the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar ; and 
no man doubts, therefore, that a conviction of the 
truth of past events may be fairly produced in the 
mind by the instrumentality of a written memorial. 
This is the kind of evidence which is chiefly appeal- 
ed to for the truth of ancient history; and it is 
counted satisfying evidence for all that part of it 
nvhich is received and depended upon. 

11. In laying before the reader, then, the evi- 
dence for the truth of Christianity, we do not call 
his mind to any singular or unprecedented exercise 
of its faculties. We call him to pronounce upon 
the credibility of written documents, which profess 
to have been published at a certain age, and by 
certain authors. The inquiry involves in it no 
principle which is not appealed to every day in 
questions of ordinary criticism. To sH in judg- 
ment on the credibihty of a written document, is a 
frequent and famihar exercise of the understand- 
ing with literary men. It is fortunate for the human 
mind, when so interesting a question as its religious 
faith can be placed under the tribunal of such evi- 
dence as it is competent to pronounce upon. It 
was fortunate for those to whom Clxristianity (a 



11 

professed communication from heaven) was first 
addressed, that they could decide upon the genuine^ 
xiess of the communication by such famihar and 
every-day principles? as the marks of truth or false* 
hood in the human hearers of that communication. 
And it is fortunate for us, that when, after that 
communication has assumed the form of a historical 
document, we can pronounce upon the degree of 
credit which should be attached to it, by the very 
same exercise of mind which we so confidently 
engage in, when sitting in examination upon the 
other historical documents that have come down to 
us from antiquity. 

12. If two historical documents possess equal de- 
grees of evidence, they should produce equal de- 
grees of conviction. But if the object of the one 
be to establish some fact connected with our reli- 
gious faith, while the object of the other is to esta- 
bhsh some fact, about which we feel no other inte- 
rests, than that general curiosity whicli is gratified 
by the solution of any question in literature, this 
difference in the object produces a difference of 
effect in the feelings and tendencies of the mind. 
It is impossible for the mind, while it enquires into 
the evidence of a Christian document, to abstain 
from all reference to the important conclusion of 
the enquiry. And this will necessarily mingle its 
influence with the arguments which engage its at- 
tention. It may be of importance to attend to the 
peculiar feelings which are thus given to the inver- 
tigation, and in how far they have affected the inv 
pression of the Christian argument. 

18. We know it to be the opinion of some, tli^u 
in this way an undue advantage has been given t%,, 
that argument. Instead of a pure Q'Jioslioii oC \ it^ ( Is . 



12 

it has been made a question af sentiments, and the 
wishes of the heart have mingled with the exercise 
of the understanding. There is a class of men who 
may feel disposed to overrate its evidences, because 
they are anxious to give every support and stability 
to a system, which they conceive to be most inti- 
mately connected with the dearest hopes and wishes 
of humanity 5 because their imagination is carried 
away by the sublimity of its doctrines, or their heart 
engaged by that amiable morahty which is so much 
calculated to improve and adorn the face of so- 
ciety. 

14. Now, we are ready to admit, that as the ob- 
ject of the inquiry is not the character, but the truth 
of Christianity, the philosopher should be careful 
to protect his mind from the delusion of its charms ; 
he should separate the exercise of the understanding 
from the tendencies of the fancy or of the heart. 
He should be prepared to follow the light of evi- 
dence, though it may lead him to conclusions tlie 
most painful and melancholy. He should train his 
mind to all the hardihood of abstract and unfeeling 
inteUigence. He should give up eveiy thing to the 
supremacy of argument, and be able to renounce, 
without a sigh, all the tenderest prepossessions of 
infancy, the moment that truth demands of him the 
sacrifice. Let it be remembered, however, that 
while one species of prejudice operates in favour 
of Christianity, another prejudice operates against 
it. There is a class of men who are repelled from 
the investigation of its evidences, because in their 
minds Christianity is aUied with the weakness of 
superstition; and they feel that they are descend- 
ing, when they bring down their attention to a sub- 



13 

ject which engrosses so much respect and aclniira-^ 
don from the vulgar. 

15. It appears to us, that the pecuhar feehng 
which the sacredness of the subject gives to the 
enquirer, is unfavourable to the impression of the 
Christian argument. Had the subject not been 
sacred, and had the same testimony been given to 
tiie facts that are connected with it, we are satis- 
fied, that the liistory of Jesus in the New Testament, 
would have been looked upon as the best supported 
by evidence of any history that has come down to 
us. It would assist us in appreciating the evidence 
ibr the truth of the gospel history, if we could con- 
ceive for a moment, that Jesus, mstead of being the 
founder of a new religion, had been merely the 
founder of a new school of philosophy, and that 
tiie different histories which have come down to us, 
liad, merely represented him as an extraordinary 
person, who had rendered himself illustrious among 
ills countrymen by the wisdom of his sa3dngs, and 
the beneficence of his actions. We venture to say, 
that had this been the case, a tenth part of the 
testimony which has actually been given, would 
have been enough to satisfy us. Had it been a 
question of mere erudition, where neither a pre- 
dilection in favour of a religion, nor an antipathy 
against it, could have impressed a bias in any one 
direction, the testimony, both in vv^eight and in 
quantity, would have been looked upon as quite 
unexampled in the whole compass of ancient lite- 
rature. 

16. To form a fair estimate of the strength and 
decisiveness of the Christian argument, we should; 
if possible, divest ourselves of all I'eferenee to reli- 
gion, niid vie^Y the tradi of the g'ospel histOiV, pin-*''- 



14 

■fy as a qiieslion of erudition, if nt the outset of 
the investigation we have a prejuuice against tlie 
Christian religion, the efie^t is obvioi?s : and without 
any refinement of explanation, we see at once how 
.such a prejudice must dispose us to annex suspicion 
and distrust to the testimony of the Christian wri- 
ters. But even when the prejudice is on tlie side of 
Christianity, the effect is unfavoumble on a mind 
that is at all scrupulous about the rectitude of its 
opinions. In these circumstances, the mind gets 
suspicious of itself. It feels a predilectiony and 
becomes apprehensive lest this predilection mp.x 
have disposed it to cherish a particular conclusioii, 
independently of the evidences by v» hicii it is sup- 
ported. Were it a mere speculative question, in 
which the interests of man, and the attaehmenls of 
his heart, had no share, he v/ould feel greater coit» 
lidetice in the result of his investigation. But it is 
difficult to separate the moral impressions of piety,* 
and it is no less difficult to calculate their precise 
influence on the exercises of the understanding- 
In the complex sentiment of attncliment and con- 
viction, which he annexes to the Christian religion, 
he finds it difficult to say, liow much is dueio the 
tendencies of the heart, and how much is due to the 
pure and unmingled iniluence of argum.eiit. His 
very anxiety for the truth, disposes him to narrate 
the circumstances which give a bias to his under- 
standing, and through the whole process of the en- 
quiry^ he feels a suspicion and an embarrassment^ 
which he would not have felt, had it been a question 
of ordinary erudition. 

17. The same suspicion wirich he attaches to 
himself, he will be ready to attach to all whom he 
ronceives to be in similar circum$tance,s, Now, 



15 

e%ery autlior who writes in defence of Christianity 
is supposed to be a Christian ; and this, in spite of 
every argument to the contrary, has the actual 
effect of weakening the impression of his testimony. 
Tiiis suspicion affects, in a more remarkable de- 
gree, the testimony of the first writers on the side 
of Christianity. In opposition to it, you have no 
doubt, to allege the circumstances under which the 
testimony was given ; the tone of sincerity which 
runs through the performance of the author ; the 
concurrence of other testimonies ; the persecutions 
which were sustained in adhering to them, and 
which can be accounted for on no other principle, 
than the power of conscience and conviction ; and 
the utter impossibihty of imposing a false testimony 
on the world, had they even been disposed to do it- 
Still there is a lurking suspicion, which often sur- 
vives all this strength of argument, and which it is 
difficult to get rid of, even after it has been demon- 
strated to be completely unreasonable. He is a 
Christian. He is one of the party. Am I an infi- 
del? I persist in distrusting the testimony. Am I 
a Christian ? I rejoice in the strength of it ; but this 
very joy becomes matter of suspicion to a scrupu- 
lous enquirer. He feels something more than the 
concurrence of his belief in the testimony of the 
writer. He catches the infection of his piety and 
his moral sentiments. In addition to the acquies^ 
cence of the understanding, there is a con amorG 
feeling, both in himself and his author, which he 
had rather been without, because he finds it difficult 
io compute the precise amount of its influence; 
and tiie consideration of this restrains him from 
•^^* clear and decided conclusion, which he would 



16 

infallibly have landed in, had it been purely a se- 
cular investigation. 

18. There is something in the very sacredness of 
the subject, which intimidates the understandings 
and restrains it from making the same firm and 
confident application of its faculties, which it would 
have felt itself perfectly warranted to do, had it 
been a question of ordinary history. Had the 
apostles been the disciples of some eminent phi- 
losopher, and the fathers of the church, their imme- 
diate successors in the office of presiding over the 
discipline and instruction of the numerous schools 
which they had established, this would have given 
a secular complexion to the argument, which we 
think would have been more satisfying to the mind^ 
and have impressed upon it a closer and more fa- 
miliar conviction of the history in question. We 
should have immediately brought it into compari- 
son with the history of other philosophers, and 
could not have failed to recognize, that in minute- 
ness of information, in weight and quantity of evi- 
dence, in the concurrence of numerous and inde- 
pendent testimonies, and in the total absence of 
every circumstance that should dispose us to annex 
suspicion to the account which lay before us, it far 
surpassed any thing that had come down to us from 
antiquity. It so happens, however, that, instead of 
being the history of a philosopher, it is the history 
of a prophet. The veneration we annex to the sa~ 
credness of such a character, mingles with our be- 
lief in the truth of his history. From a question of 
simple truth, it becomes a question in which the heart 
is interested ; and the subject from that moment as- 
sumes a certain hoHness and mystery, which veils 
t]ie strength of the argument, and takes off from 



17 

that fiUTiiliar and intimate conviction which we an- 
nex to the far less authenticated histories of profane 
authors. 

19. It may be further observed, that every part 
of the Christian argument has been made to under- 
go a most severe scrutiny. The same degree of 
evidence which, in questions of ordinary history, 
commands the easy and universal acquiescence of 
every inquirer, has, in the subject before us, been 
taken most thoroughly to pieces, and pursued both 
by friends and enemies, into all its ramifications. 
The effect of this is unquestionable. The genuine- 
ness and authenticity of the profane historian, are 
admitted upon much inferior evidence to what we 
can adduce for the different pieces which make up 
the Nev/ Testament : And why ? because the evi- 
dence has been hitherto thought sufficient, and the 
genuineness and authenticity have never been ques- 
tioned. Not so with the gospel histor}^ Though 
its evidence is precisely the same in kind, and vastly 
superior in degree, to the evidence for the history 
of the profane writer, its evidence has been ques* 
tioned, and the very circumstance of its being ques- 
tioned has annexed a suspicion to it. At all points 
of the question, there has been a struggle and a 
controversy. Every ignorant objection, and every 
rash and petulent observation, has been taken up 
and commented upon by the defenders of Chris- 
tianity. There has at last been so much said about 
it, that a general feeling of insecurity is apt to ac- 
company the whole investigation. There has been 
so much fighting, that Christianity is now looked 
upon as debateable ground. Other books, where 
the evidence is much inferior, but which have had 
the advantage of never being questioned, are receiv- 
2* 



18 

ed as of established autliority. It is striking to ob» 
serve the perfect confidenee with which an infidel 
will quote a passage from an ancient historian. He 
perhaps does not overrate the credit due to hini. 
But present him with a tabellated and comparative 
view of all the evidences that can be adduced for 
the gospel of Matthew, and any profane historian 
which he chooses to fix upon, and let each distinct 
evidence be discussed upon no other principle, tlian 
the ord;nar)7- and approved principle of criticism, 
we assure him that the sacred history- would far 
outweigh the profane in the number and value of 
its testimonies. 

20. In illustration of the above remarks, we can 
refer to the experience of these who have attended 
to this exa^raination. We ask them to recollect the 
satisfaction which they felt, when they came to those 
parts of the examination, where the argument as^ 
sumes a secular complexion. Let us take the tes*" 
timony of Tacitus for an example. He asserts the 
execution of our Saviour in the reign of Tiberius, 
and under the procuratorsbip of Pilate; the tem- 
porary check which this p;iive to his religion ; its 
I'evival and the progress it had made, not ouly over 
Judea, but to the city of Rome. Now all this is 
attested in the Annals of Tacitus. But h is also 
attested in a far more direct and circumstantial 
manner in the annals of ajiotJier author, in a book 
entitled the History of the' Acts of the Apostles by tlm 
Evmigclist Luke. Both of these per/bnnances carry 
on the very ibce of them the appearance of uiisiiS' 
picious aud vvell-aufhenticnted documenLs. But 
there are several circumstances in wliicl) the Testi- 
mony of Luke possesses a (iccided ad \Tnitr5ge over 
the testirnonv of Tacitus^ He v;as tlie cou:paniao 



19 

of these very apostles. lie was nn eye-witness t^ 
many of the events recorded by him. He had the 
advantage over the Roman historian in time and in 
placCj and in personal knowledge of many of the 
circumstances in his history. The genuineness of 
his publications, too, and the tim€ of its appearance^ 
^re far better established, and b}^ precisely that Jdnd 
of argument which is lield decisive in every other 
question of erudition. Besides all this, we have the 
testimony of at least five of tlie Christian fathers, ail 
of whom had the same, or a greater, advantage im 
point of time than Tacitus, and who had a much 
nearer and readier access to original sources of 
information. Now, how comes it that the testimo- 
i-iy of Tacitus, a distant and later historian, should 
j^ield such delight and satisfaction to the inquirer^ 
-while all the antecedent testunony (which, by €very 
principle of ap])roved criticism, is much stronger 
than the otlier,) should produce an impression that 
is comparatively languid and ineifectual ? It is ow« 
ing, in a great measure, to the principle which we 
liave already alluded to. There is a sacredness 
annexed to the subject, so long as it is under the pen 
of fathers and evangelists, and tlris very sacredness 
takes away from the freedom and confidence of the 
argument. The moment tliat it is taken up by a 
profane author, the spell which held the under- 
standing in some degree of restraint is dissipated. 
We now tread on the more familiar ground of or- 
dinary history ; and the evidence for the truth of 
the gospel appears more assimilated to that evi- 
dence, which brings home to our conviction the 
particulars of the G)-eek and Roman story. 

21. To say tliat Tacitus v,^as upon this su])ject a. 
disinterested liistorian^is not enough to explain ihe 



20 

preference which you give to his testimony. There 
is no subject in which the triumph of the Christian 
argument is more conspicuous, than the moral quaU- 
fications which pve credit to the testimony of its 
witnesses. We have every possible evidence, that 
there could be neither mistake nor falscjiood in their 
testimony; a much greater quantity of evidence, 
indeed, than can actually be produced to estabhsh 
the credibility of any other historian. Now all we 
ask is, that where an exception to the veracity of 
any historian is removed, you restore him to that 
degree of credit and influence which he ought to 
have possessed, had no such exception been made. 
In no case has an exception to the credibility of 
an author been more triumphantly removed, than 
-with the early Christian writers ; and yet, as a proof 
that there really exists some such delusion as we? 
have been labouring to estabhsh, though our eyes 
are perfectly open to the integrity of the Christian 
witnesses, there is still a disposition to give the pre* 
ference to the secular historian. When Tacitus is 
placed by the side of the evangelist Luke, even after 
the decisive argument which estabhshes the credit 
of the latter historian has convinced the under- 
standing, there remains a tendency in the mind to 
annex a confidence to the account of the Roman 
writer, which is altogether disproportioned to the 
relative merits of his testimony. 

22. Let us suppose, for the sake of further illus^ 
tration, that Tacitus had included some more par- 
ticulars in his testimony, and that, in addition to 
the execution of our Saviour, he had asserted, in 
round and unqualified terms, that this said Christus 
had risen from the dead, and was seen alive by some 
hundreds of his acquaintances. Even tliis would 



21 

not have silenced altogether the cavils of enemies^ 
but it would have reclaimed many an infidel ; been 
exulted in by many a sincere Christian ; and made 
to occupy a foremost place in many a book upon, 
the evidences of our religion. Are we to forget all 
the while, that we are in actual possession of much 
stronger testimony ? that we have the concurrence 
of eight or ten cotemporary authors, most of whom 
had actually seen Christ after the great event of his 
resurrection? that the- veracity of these authors? 
and the genuineness of their respective publications^ 
are estabhshed on grounds much stronger than have 
ever been alleged in behalf of Tacitus, or any an- 
cient author ? Whence this unaccountable prefer- 
ence of Tacitus ? Upon every received principle of 
criticism, we are bound to annex greater confidence 
to the testimony of the apostles. It is vain to recur 
to the imputation of its being an interested testimo- 
ny. This the apologists for Christianity undertake 
to disprove, and actually have disproved it, and that 
by a much greater quantity of evidence than would 
be held perfectly decisive in a question of common 
history. If after this there sho aid remain any lurk- 
ing sentiment of diffidence or suspicion, it is entirely 
resolvable into some such principle as I have al- 
ready alluded to. It is to be treated as a mere 
feeling, — a delusion which should not be admitted 
to have any influence on the convictions of the un- 
derstanding. 

23. The principle which we have been attempt- 
ing to expose, is found, in fact, to run through eveiy 
part of the argument, and to accompany the en- 
quirer through all the branches of the investigation. 
The authenticity of the different books of the New 
Testament forms a very important enquiry^ wherei?' 



22 

tlie object of the Christian apologist is to prove 
that they were really written by their professed au- 
thors. In proof of thisj there is an uninterrupted 
series of testimony from the days of the apostles; 
and it was not to be expected, that a point so iso- 
teric to the Christian society could have attracted 
the attention of profane authors, till the religion of 
JesuS; by its progress in the world, had rendered 
itself conspicuous. It is not then till about eighty 
years after the publication of the difierent pieces, 
that we meet with the testimony of Celcus, an avow* 
ed enemy to Crist ianity, and who asserts, upon the 
Strength of its general notoriety, that the historical 
parts of the New Testament were written by the 
disciples of our Saviour. This is very decisive evi- 
dence. But how does it happen, that it should thi'ow 
a clearer gleam of light and satisfaction over the 
mind of the enquirer, than he had yet experienced 
in the whole train of his investigation ? Whence 
that disposition to underrate the antecedent testi- 
mony of the Christian writers ? Talk not of their's 
being an interested testimony ; for in point of fact, 
the same disposition operates, after reason is con- 
vinced that the suspicion is totally unfounded. 
What we contend for is, that this indifference to the 
testimony of the Christian writers imphes a dere- 
liction of principles, which we apply with the utmost 
confidence to all similar enquiries. 

24. The effects of this same principle are per- 
fectly discernible in the writings of even our most 
judicious apologists. We offer no reflection against 
the worthy and meritorious Lardner, who, in his 
credibility of the gospel histor}^, presents us witli a 
<:ollection of testimonies which should make every 
Christian proud of his religion. In his evidence 



23 

for llie autlienticity of the different pieces wliieli 
make u}) tiie New Testament, he begins with the 
oldest of the fathers, some of whom were the inti- 
mate companions of the original writers. Accor- 
ding to our view of the matter, he should have dated 
the commencement of his argument from a higher 
point, and begun with the testimonies of these origi- 
nal writers to one another. In the second epistle 
of Peter, there is a distinct reference made to the 
writings of Paul, and in the Acts of the Apostles, 
there is a reference made to one of the four gospels. 
Had Peter, instead of being an apostle, ranked only 
^^'\\h the fathers of the church, and had his epistle 
liol been admitted into the canon of scripture, this 
testimony of his would have had a place in the 
catalogue, and been counted peculiarly valuable, 
bolii for its precision and its antiquity. There is 
certainly nothing in tlie estimation he enjoyed, or 
in the cucumstances of his epistle being bound up 
with the other books of the New Testament, which 
ought to impair the credit of his testimony. But 
m eitect, his testimony does make a weaker impres- 
sion on t[ie mind, than a similar testimony from Bar- 
nabas, or Clement, <?jr Polycarp. It certainly ought 
not to do it, and there is a delusion in the pre- 
ference that is thus given to tlie latter writers. It h 
in fact another exam|)le of the principle which we 
have been so often insisting upon. What profane 
authors are in reference to Christian authors al 
large, the fathers of llie church are in reference to 
the original writers of the New Testament. In 
contradiction to every approved principle, we pre- 
fer the distant and tiie later lestiraon}% to the tes- 
timony of writers, who carry ns unic]] evidence and 
iOirit.iniJ^tc nutJi^riti'Jt!'^;^^' V;'it!! 'b^jn, '^^•»H ^■.-^^-^ oti1\- 



24 

differ from others in being nearer the original sour- 
ces of hiformation. We neglect and undervalue the 
evidence which the New Testament itself furnishes, 
and rest the whole of the argument upon the exter- 
nal and superinduced testimony of subsequent au- 
thors. 

25. A great deal of all this is owing to the man- 
ner in which the defence of Christianity has been 
conducted by its friends and supporters. They 
have given too much* in to the suspicions of the 
opposite party. They Ivave yielded their minds to 
the infection of their scepticism^ and raaiiitained^.. 
through the whole process, a caution and a delica- 
cy which they of i en can y to an excessive dv^gi-ee ^ 
nndhy whichj in fact, ihey have done injustice to^ 
their own arguments. Some of them begin witlu 
the testimony of Tacitus as a first princitile^ and^ 
pursue the investigation upvvardsjas if tlie evidence- 
that we collect from llie annals of the Roman iiis- 
torian were stronger ihvdi that of the Christian^ 
wTiters who flourished nearer the scene of the in- 
vestigation, a,nd whose credibility can be estabiislied 
on grounds which are altogether independent of his 
testimony. In this way, they come at last to tlie 
credibilit}?- of the New Testament v/riters, but by a 
lengthened and circuitous procedure. The reader 
feels as if the arguments were dduted at every step 
in tlie process of derivation^ and his faith in the gos- 
pel histor3/^ is much weaker than his faith in histo- 
ries that are far less authenticated. Bring Tacitus 
mjd the New Testament to an immediate compari- 
son, and subject them both to the touclistone of 
ordinary and received principles^ and it will be 
found tliat the latter leaves tjie former out of sight. 
r^ r^^- ^he marks and characters, and evidences oi- 



m 

an authentic history. The tnith of the gospel 
stands on a much firmer and more independent 
footings than many of its defenders would dare to 
give us any conception of. They want that bold* 
ness of argument which the merits of the question 
entitle them to assume. They ought to m?iiatain a 
more decided front to their adversaries, and tell 
them, tliat^ in the New Testament itself— -In the con- 
currence of its numerous^ and d st^mt, and inde- 
pedent authors — in the uncontradicted authority 
which it has mamtained fiom the earliest times of 
the church — m the total mability of the bitterest 
adversaries of our religion to impeach its credibili- 
ty — in the genuine characters of honesty and fair- 
ness which it carries on the very face of it — that 
in these, and in every thing else, w! ich can give 
validity to the written history of past times, there is 
a weight and a splendour of evidence, which the 
testimony of Tacit; is cannot confirm, and which 
the absence of that testimony could not have di- 
minished 

26. If it were necessary, in a court of justice, to 
ascertain the circumstances of a certain transaction 
which happened in a particular neighbourhood, the 
obvious expedient would be to examine the agentg 
and the eye-witnesses of that transaction. If six, 
or eight concurred in giving the same testimony— 
if there was no appearance of collusion amongst 
them — if they had the manner and aspect of credi- 
table men — above all;^ if this testimony were made 
public, and not a single individual, fom the nume- 
rous spectators of tlie transaction Idiuded to, stept 
forward to falsify it, then, we apprehend, the proof 
v>^ould be looked upon as complete. Other witness- 
es might be summoned from a distance to eivo in 

3 



26 

their testimony, not of what they saw, but of what 
they heard upon the subject ; but their concurrencej 
though a happy enough circumstance, would never 
be looked upon as any material addition to the evi- 
dence already brought forward. Another court of 
justice might be held in a distant country, and years 
after the death of the original witnesses. It might 
have occasion to verify the same transaction, and 
for this purpose might call in the only evidence 
which it was capable of collecting — the testimony 
of men who lived after the transaction in question^ 
and at a great distance from the place where it 
happened. There would be no Iiesit^tion, in or- 
dinary cases, about which of the two testimonies 
ought to be preferred ; and the record of the first 
court could be appealed to by posterity as by far 
the more valuable document, and far more decsive 
of the point in controversy. Now, what we com- 
plain of is, that in the instance Ijefore us this prin- 
ciple is reversed. The reports of hearsay witnesses 
is held in higher estimation than the reports of the 
original agents and spectators. The most implicit 
credit is given to the testimony of the distant and 
later historians, and the testimony of the original 
witnesses is received with as much distrust as if 
they carried the marks of villainy and imposture 
upon their foreheads. The genuineness of the first 
record can be established by a much greater weight 
and variety of evidence, than the genuineness of 
the second. Yet all the suspicion that we feel up- 
on tliis subject annexes to the former ; and the 
apostles and evangelists, v/ith every evidence in 
tlieir favour which it is in the power of testimony 
10 f irrsisb, are, in f;ict, degraded from the place 



■27 

which they ought to occupy among the accredited 
historians of past times. 

27. The above observations may help to prepare 
the enquirer for forming a just and impartial esti« 
mate of the merits of the Christian testimony. His 
great object should be to guard against every bias 
of the understanding. The general idea is, that a 
predilection in favour of Christianity may lead him 
to overrate the argument. We believe that if ev- 
ery unfair tendency of the mind could be subjected 
to a rigorous computation, it would be found that 
the combined operation of them all has the effect 
of impressing a bias in a co]itrary direction. All 
we wish for is, that the arguments, which are held 
decisive in other historical questionsr should not be 
looked upon as nugatory when applied to the in- 
vestigation of those facts which are connected with 
the truth and establishment of the Christian reli- 
gion, that every prepossession should be swept away> 
and room left for the understanding to expatiate 
without fear, and without incumbrance. 

28. The argument for the truth of the different 
facts recorded in the gospel history, resolves itself 
into four parts. In the first, it shall be our object to 
prove, that the different pieces which make up the 
New Testg.ment, were written by the authors whose 
names they bear, and at the age which is common- 
ly assigned to them. In the second, we shall ex- 
hibit the internal marks of truth and honesty which 
may be gathered from the compositions themselves. 
In the third, we shall press upon the reader the 
known situation and history of the authors, as sat- 
isfying proofs of the veracity with which they de- 
livered themselves. And, in the fourth part, we 
shall lay before them the additional and subsequeAt 



2S 

testimonies, by which the narrative of the original 
writers is supported. 

29. In every point of the investigation, we shall 
meet with examples of the principle which we have 
already alluded to. We have said, that if two distinct 
jBnquines be set on foot, where the object of the one 
is to settle some point of sacred history, and the 
object of the other is to settle some point of profane 
history ; the mind acquiesces in a much smaller 
quantity of evidence in the latter case than it does 
in the former. If this be right, (and to a certain 
degree it undoubtedly is,) then it is incumbent on 
the defender of Christianity to bring forward a 
greatef quantity of evidence than would be deemed 
sufficient in a question of common literature, and 
to demand the acquiescence of his reader upon the 
strength of his superior evidence. If it be not right 
beyond a certain degree — and if there be a tenden- 
cy in the mind to carry it beyond that degree, then 
this tendency is founded upon a delusion, and it is 
well that the reader should be apprised of its exis- 
tence, that he may protect himself from its influ- 
ence. The superior quantity of evidence which we 
can bring forward will, in this case, all go to aug- 
ment the positive effects upon his convictions ; and 
he will rejoice to perceive, that he is far safer in 
believing what hr^s been handed down to him of the 
history of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of his 
apostles, than in believing what he has never doubt- 
ed — the history of Alexander^ and the doctrine of 
Socrates. Could ail the marks of veracity, and 
the list of subsequent testimonies, be exhibited to 
the eye of the reader in parallel columns, it would 
enable hhii at one glance, to form a complete esti- 
mate* We shall have occasion to call his attention 



29 

to this so often, that we may appear to many of our 
readers to liave expatiated upon our introductory 
principle to a degree that is tiresome and unneces- 
sary. We conceive, however, that it is the best 
and most perspicuous way of putting the argument. 

30. I. The different pieces which make up the 
>Iew Testament, were written by the authors whose 
names they bear, and at the time which is com^ 
moniy assigned to them. 

31. After the long slumber of the middle ages^ 
the curiosity of the human mind was awakened, 
and felt its attention powerfully directed to those 
old writings which have survived the waste of so 
many centuries. It were a curious speculation to 
ascertain the precise quantity of evidence which 
lay ill the information of these old documents. And 
it may help us in our estimate, first to suppose, that 
in the researches of that period, there was only 
one composition found which professed to be a 
narrative of past times. A number of circum* 
stances can be assigned, which might give a certain 
degree of probability to the information even of 
this solitary and unsupported document* There is^ 
first, the general consideration, that the principle 
upon which a man feels himself induced to write a 
true history, is of more frequent and powerful 
operation, than the principle upon which a man 
feels himself induced to offer a false or a disguised 
representation of facts to the world. This affords 
a general probability on the side of the document 
in question being a, true narrative ; and there may 
be some particulars conneeted with the appearance 
of the performance itself, which miglit strengthen 
this probability. We may not be able to discover 

in the history itself any inducement which the man 

3# 



30 

could have in publishing it^ if it were mainly and 
substantially false. We might see an expression of 
honesty, wiiich it is in the power of written lan- 
guage, as well as of spoken language, to convey. 
We might see that there was nothing monstrous or 
improbable in the narrative itself And, without 
enumerating every particular calculated to give it 
the impression of truth, we may, in the progress of 
our inquiries, have ascertained that copies of this 
manuscript were to be found in many places, and 
in different parts of the world, proving, by the evi- 
dence of its diffusion, the general esteem in which 
it was held by the readers of past ages» This gives 
us the testimony of these readers to the vakie 
of the performance ; and as we are supposing it a 
history, and not a work of imagination, it could 
only be valued on the principle of its being true 
information which was laid before them. In this 
way, a solitary document, transmitted to us from a 
remote antiquity, might gain credit in the world j 
though it had been lost sight of for many ages, and 
only brought to light by the revival of a literary 
spirit, which had lain dormant during a long period 
of history. 

32. We can farther suppose, that, in the prog- 
ress of these researches, another manuscript was 
discovered, having the same characters, and pos- 
sessing the same separate and origmal marks of 
truth with the former. If they both touched upon 
the same period of history, and gave testimony to 
the same events, it is plain that a stronger evi- 
dence for the truth of these events would be afford- 
ed, than what it was in the power of either of the 
testimonies taken separately to supply. The sepa- 
rate circumstances which gave a distinct credibili- 



SI 

ty to each of the testimonies, are added togetber-. 
and give a so much higher credibility to those 
points of information upon which they dehver a 
common testimony. This is the case when the tes- 
timonies carry in them the appearance of being iri- 
dependent of one another. And even when the 
one is derived from the other, it still affords an ac- 
cession to the evidence, because the author of the 
subsequent testimony gives us the distinct assertion, 
that he behoved in the truth of the original testi- 
mony. 

33. The evidence may be strengthened still far- 
ther, by the accession of a tliird manuscript, and a 
third testimony. Ail the separate circumstances 
which confer credibihty upon any one document, 
even though it stands alone and unsupported by 
any other, combine themselves into a much stron- 
ger body of evidence, when we have obtained the 
concurrence of several. If, even in the case of a 
single narrative, a probability lies on the side of 
its being true, from the muUitude and diffusion of 
copies, and from the air of truth and honesty dis- 
cernible in the composition itself, the probabihty is 
heightened by the coincidence of several narra- 
tives, all of them possessing the same claims upon 
our belief. If it be improbable that one should be 
written for the purpose of imposing a falsehood 
upon the world, it is still more improbable that ma- 
ny should be written, all of them conspiring to the 
same perverse and unnatural objects. No one can. 
doubt, at least, that of the multitude of written tes- 
timonies which have come down to us, the true 
must greatly preponderate over the false ; and thai; 
the deceitful principle, though it exists sometimes, 
would never operate to such an extent, as to car- 



82 

ry any great or general imposition in the face of all 
riie documents which are before us. The supposi- 
tion must be extended much farther than we have 
yet carried it, before we reach the degree of evi- 
dence and of testimony, which, on many points of 
jmcient history, we are at this moment in actual 
possession of. Many documents have been col- 
lected, professing to be written at different times, 
and by men of different countries. In this way, a 
great body of ancient literature has been formed, 
from which we can collect many points of evi- 
dence, too tedious to enumerate. Do we find the 
express concurrence of several authors to tlie same 
piece of history ? Do we find, v/hat is still more 
impressive, events formally announced in one nar- 
rative, not told over again, but implied and pro- 
ceeded upon as true in another ? Do we find the 
succession of liistory, through a series of ages, sup- 
ported in a way that is natural and consistent ? Do 
v/e find these compositions which profess a higher 
antiquity, appealed to by those which profess a 
lower ? These, and a number of other points, which 
meet every scholar who betakes himself to the ac-^ 
tual investigation, give a most warm and living 
character of reality to the history of past times.—- 
There is a perversit}^ of mind which may resist all 
this. There is no end to the fancies of scepticism. 
We may plead in vain the num{)er of written tes- 
timonies ; their artless coincidence, and the per- 
fect undesignedness of manner by which they of- 
ten supply the circumstances that serve both to 
puide and satisfy the inquirer, and to throw light 
ai]d support upon one another. The mfidel will 
$\]\\ iirwe something, beliind which he can entrencli 
himself,- and his last supposition, monsUous an^ 



unnatural as it is, may be, that the whole of writ- 
ten history is a laborious fabrication, sustained for 
many ages, and concurred in by many individuals, 
with no other pupose than to enjoy the anticipa- 
ted blunders of the men of future times, whom they 
had combined with so much dexterity to bewilder 
and lead astray. 

34. If it wei*e possible to summon up to the 
presence of the mind, the whole mass of spoken 
testimony, it would be found that what was false 
bore a very small proportion to what was true. 
For many obvious reasons, the proportion of the 
false to the true must be also small in written testi- 
mony. Yet instances of falsehood occur in both 5 
and the actual ability to separate the false from 
the true, in written history^ proves that historical 
evidence has its principles and its probabilities to go 
upon. There may be the natural signs of dishones- 
ty. There may be the wildness and improbability 
of the narrative. There may be a total want of 
agreement on the part of other documents. There 
may be the silence of every author for ages after 
the pretended date of the manuscript in question. 
There may be all the^e, in sufficient abundance, to 
convict the manuscript of forgery and falsehood. 
This has actally been done in several instances. 
The skill and discernment of the human mind upon 
the subject of historical evidence, have been improv- 
ed by the exercise. The few cases in which sentence 
of condemnation has been given, are so many tes- 
timonies to the competency of the tribunal which 
has sat in judgment over them, and give a stability 
to tiieir verdict, when any document is approved of. 
It is a peculiar subject, and the men who stand at 
a distance from it may multiply their suspicions 



34 

and their scepticism at pleasure ; but no intelligent 
man ever entered into the details, without feeling 
the most familiar and satisfying conviction of that 
credit and confidence^ which it is in the power of 
historical evidence to bestow. 

35. Now, to apply this to the object of our pre- 
sent division, which is to ascertain the age of the 
documents, and the person who is the author of it. 
These are points of information which may be col- 
lected from the performanc e itself. They may be 
fodnd in the boiy of the composition, or they may 
be more formally announced in the title-pa/rC — and 
every time that the book is referred to by its title, 
or the name of the author and age of the the pub- 
lication are announced in any other document that 
has come down to us, these points of information 
receive additional proof from the testimony of 
subsequent writers. 

36. The New Testament is bound up in one 
volume, but we would be underrating its evidence if 
we regarded it only as one testimon}^, and that the 
truth of the facts recorded in it rested upon the 
testimony of one historian. It is not one pubhca- 
tion, but a collection of several publications, which 
are ascribed to different authors, and made their 
first appearance in difierent parts of the world* 
To fix the date of their appearance, it is necessary 
to institute a separate enquiry for each pubhcation; 
and it is the unexcepted testimony of all subse- 
quent writers, that two of the gospels, and several 
of the epistles, were written by the immediate dis- 
ciples of our Saviour, and pubhshed in their lifetime. 
Celsns. an enemy of the Christian faith, refers to 
the affairs of Jesus as written by his disciples. He 
never thinks of disputing the fact^ and from the 



36 

extracts which he makes for the purpose of criti- 
cism, there can be no doubt in the mind of the 
reader, that it iS one or other of the four gospels to 
which he refers. Tlie single testimony of Celsus 
may be copsidered as decisive of the fact, that the 
story of Jesus and his hfe was actually written by 
his disciples. Celsus writes ab©ut a hundred years 
after the alleged time of the publication of this 
story ; but that it was written by the companions 
of this Jesus, is a fact which he never thinks of dis- 
puting. He takes it up upon the strength of its 
general notoriety, and the whole history of that 
period furnishes nothing that can attach any doubt 
or suspicion to this circumstance* Referring to a 
prmciple akeady taken natice of, had it been the 
history of a philosopher instead of a prophet, its 
authenticity would have been admitted without any 
formal testimony to that effect. It would have 
been admitted, so to speak, upon the mere exis- 
tence of the title-page, combined with this circum- 
stance, that the whole course of history or tradition 
does not furnish us with a single fact, leading us to 
believe that the correctness of this title-page was 
ever questioned. !.t would have been admitted, not 
because it was asserted by subsequent writers, but 
because they made no assertion upon the subject^ 
because they never thought of converting it into a 
matter of discussion, and because their occasional 
xeferences to the book in question would be looked 
upon as carrying in them a tacit acknowledgement^ 
that it was the very same hook which it professed 
to be at the present day. The distinct assertion 
of Celsius, tliat the pieces in question v/ere written 
])y the (:o;:ip?^iii^o]}s of Jesus, Ihoueii even at the dis- 
iaiire of 100 v^-^ars. is an jirrnmcnt li). fcvovir ol* 



their autlienticity which cannot be alledged for ma- 
ny of the most esteemed compositions of antiquity. 
It is the addition of formal testimony to that kind 
of general evidence, which is founded upon the ta- 
cit or implied concurrence of subsequent writers^ 
and which is held to be perfectly decisive in similar 
cases. 

37. Had the pieces which make up the New Tes- 
tament been the only documents of past times> the 
mere existence of a pretension to such an age, and 
to such an author, resting on their own information, 
would have been sustained as a certain degree of 
evidence that the real age and the real author had 
been assigned to them,- But we have the testimony 
of subsequent authors to the same effect 5 and it is 
to be remarked, that it is by far the most crowded, 
and the most closely sustained series of testimonies, 
of which we have any example in the whole field o£ 
ancient histor}^. When we assigned the testimony 
of Gelsus, it is not to be supposed that this is the 
very first which occurs afler the days of the apos- 
tles. The blank of a luuidred years betwixt the 
publication of the original story and the publication 
af Celsus, is filled up by antecedent testimonies, 
which, in all fairness should be counted more deci- 
sive of the point in question. They are the testi- 
monies of Christian writers^ and, in as far as a 
nearer opportunity of obtaining correct information 
is concerned, they should be held more valuable than 
the teslimony of Celsus. In some cases? their re- 
ference to the books of the New Testament is made 
In the farm of an express quotation, and the autlK)r 
particularly named. In other cases, the quotation 
ss made v^'ithout refereace to the particnl^ir author;. 
^nd ushci/e-.^ hi bv {he i^eneral ".vovcls ^^ r^ il h icrlt. 



S7 

tenP And beside^ there are innumerable allusions 
to the different parts of the New Testament, scat- 
tered over all the writings of the earlier fathers, in 
this last case, there is no express citation ; but we 
have the sentiment, the term of expression, the very 
words of the New Testament repeated so often, 
and by such a number of different writers, as to 
leave no doubt upon the mind, that they were copi- 
ed from one common original, which was at that 
period htl i in high reverence and estimation, in 
pursuing the train of references, we do not meet 
with a Single chasm from the days of the original 
writers. Not to repeat what we have already made 
some allusion to, the testimonies of the origmal wri- 
ters to one another, we proceed to assert, that some 
of tlie fathers, wliose writings have come down to 
us, were the companions of the apostles, and are 
even named in the books of the New Testament. 
St. Clement, bishop of Rome, is, with the concur- 
rence of all the ancient authors, the same whom 
Paul mentions in his epistle to the Phillipians- 
In his epistle to the ciu^rcli of Corinth, which 
was written in the name of the whole cliurch of 
Rome, he refers to the first epistle of Paul to the 
former church. '^ Take into your hands the epistle 
of the blessed Paul the apostle.'^ He then makes 
a quotation, which is to be found in PauPs first epis- 
tle to the Corinthians. Could Clement have done 
this to the Corinthians themselves, had no such 
epistle been in existence ? And is not this an un- 
doubted testimony, not merely from the mouth of 
Clement, but on the part of the churches botli of 
Rome and Coriuth, to the authenticity of such an. 
epistle ? Tliere are in this same epistle of Clement., 
several niTot?iiioiTS of the seceRfl kind, which cok- 

4 



S8 

:^inTi the existence of some other books of the New 
Testament ^ and a multitude of allusions or refer«- 
ences of the third kind^ to the writings of the evan- 
gelists^ the Acts of the Apostles, and a great many 
of these epistles which have been admitted into the 
New Testament. We have similar testimonies 
from some more of the fathers, who lived and con- 
\\^rsed with Jesus Christ. Besides many references 
of the second and third kind, we h^ve also other hi- 
stances of the same kind of testimony which Cle- 
ment gave to St. PauFs lirst epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, than which nothing can be conceded more 
indisputable. Ignatius, writing to the church of 
Ephesus, takes notice of St. PauPs epistle to that 
church ; and Polycarp, an immediate disciple of 
tlie apostles, makes the same express reference to 
St. PauFs epistle to the P hi! 11 pi an s, in a letter ad- 
dressed to tliat people. In cairying our attention 
down from the apostolical fathers, we follow an unin- 
terrupted series of testimonies to the authenticity of 
the canonical scriptures. They get more numer- 
ous and circumstantial as we proceed, — a thing to 
be expected from the progress of Christianity, and 
the greater multitude of writers, who come forward 
in its defeiice and illustration. 

38. In pursuing the series of v/riters, from the 
days of tlie apostles down to a])out 150 years af- 
ter tlie publication of the pieces which make up 
the New Testament, we come to Tertullian, of 
whom Lardner says, " that there are perliaps mojc 
and longer qi!Otntions of tlie small vo'uiiie of the 
New Testament in this one Christian autlior, than 
of all the vvorks of Cicei'o, though of so uacom- 
inon excellence for thought and style, in tire writers ;, 
of all ch^'aci;ers (or seveiul a<'rs.'' : 



t 



39 

39. We feel ourselves exposed in this part of our 
investigation J to the S5;Sp«cion whicii adheres to 
evejy Christian testimony. We have already 
made some attempts to analyse that suspicion and 
its ingredients, and we conceive^ that the circum- 
stance of the Christians being an interested party, 
is only one, and not perhaps the principal of these 
ingredients. At all events, this may be the proper 
place for disposing of tliat one ingredient, and for 
offering a few general observations on the strength 
of the Clirstian testioiony. 

40. In estimating tlie va^ue of any testimony, 
there are two distinct subjects of consideration ; 
the person who gives the testimony, and the peo* 
pie to whom the testimony is addressed. It is 
quite needless to enlarge on the resources whicli, in 
the present mstance, v/e derive from both these 
considerations, and how much each of them con- 
tributes to the triumph and solidity of the Chris- 
tian argument. In as far as the people who give 
the testimony are concerned, how could they be 
mistaken in their accor.nt of the books of the New 
Testament, when some of them lived in the same 
age with the original writers, and were their inti- 
mate acquaintances, and when all of them had the 
benefit of an uncontrolled series of evidence, reach- 
ing down from the date of the earlif st publications 
to their own times? Or, how can we s^ispect that 
they falsified, wlien there runs through their wri- 
tings the same tone of plainness and sincerity, 
whicii is allovv'ed to stamp the character of authen- 
ticity on other productions ; and, above all, when, 
upon the strenatii even of heathen testimony, we 
conclude, that many of them, by their sufferings 
and death^ gave the highest evidence that man cap 



40 

give, of his speaking under the influence of a real 
and honest conviction ? Jn as far as the people 
who received the testimony are concerned, to what 
other circumstances can we ascribe their concur- 
renccj but to the truth of that testimony ? In what 
way was it possible to deceive them upon a point 
of general notoriety ? The books of the New Tes- 
tament are referred to by the ancient fathers, as 
writings generally known and respected by the 
Christians of that period. If they were obscure 
writings, or had no existence at the time, how can 
we account for the credit and authority of those 
fathers who appealed to them, and had the effron- 
tery to insult their fellow Christians by a falsehood 
so palpable, and so easily detected ? Allow them to 
be capable of this treachery, we have still to ex- 
plain, how the people came to be the dupes of so 
glaring an imposition ; how they could be permitted 
to give up every thing for a rehgion, whose teach- 
ers were so unprincipled as to deceive them, and 
so unwise as to commit themselves upon ground 
where it was impossible to elude discovery. Could 
Clement have dared to refer the people of Corinth 
to an epistle said to be received by themselves, and 
which had no existence ? or, could he have refer- 
red the Christians at large to writings which they 
Fxcver heard of ? And it was not enoagli to main- 
tain the semblance of truth with the people of their 
own party. Where were the Jews all the time ? 
and how was it possible to escape the correction of 
these keen and vigilant observers ? We mistake 
the matter much, if we think, that Christianity at 
that time was making its insidious way in silence 
and in secrecy, through a listless and unconcerned 
pubhc. All history gives an opposite representa*- 



41 

tion. The passions and curiosity of men were quite 
upon the alert. The popular enthuSiMSin had been 
excited on both sides of the question. It had 
drawn the attention of the estabiislied authorities 
in difierent provinces of the empire, and the mer- 
its of tiie Christian cause had become a matter of 
frequent and formal discussion in courts of judica- 
ture. Ifj in these circumstances, the Christian wri- 
ters had the hardihood to venture upon a falsehood, 
it would liave been upon safer ground th^ni what 
they naturally adopted. They would never liave 
hazarded to assert what was so open to contradic* 
tion, as the existence of books iield ui reverence 
among ail the churches, and which yet nobody 
either in or out of tiiese churches ever heard of. — 
They would never have been so unwise as to com- 
mit in this way a cause, which had not a single 
circumstance to recommeiid it but its truth and its 
evidences. 

41. The falsehood of the Christian testimony or 
this point, carries along with it a concurrence of 
circumstances, each of vvhicli is the strangest and 
most unprecedented that ever was heard of. Fnst, 
That men, who sustained in their writings all the 
characters of sincerity, and many of whom sub- 
mitted to martyrdom, as the highest pledge of sin- 
cerity which can possibly be given, should have 
J>een capable of falsehood at all. Second, That 
this tendency to falsehood should have been exer- 
cised so unwisely, as to appear in an assertion per- 
fectly open to detection, and which could be so 
readily converted to the discredit of that religion, 
which it was the favourite ambition of their lives 
t(f promote and estabhsh in the world. Third, 
That this testimony could have gained the con- 
4^ 



mrrence of the people to whom it was addressedj 
and that J with their eyes perfectly open to its fiilse- 
lioodj they should be ready to make the sacrifice of 
life and of fortune in supporting it. Fourth, That 
this testimony should never have been contradict- 
ed by the Jews, and that they should have neglect- 
ed so effectual an opportunity of disgracing a re- 
ligion, the progress of which tliey contemplated 
with so much jealousy and alarm. Add to tins, 
that it is not the testimony of one writer, which we 
are making to pass through the ordeal of so many 
difficulties. It is the testimony of many writers, 
who lived at different times, and in different coun- 
tries, and who add the very singular circumstonce 
of their entu'e agreement with one another, to the 
other circumstances equally unaccountable, which 
we have just now enumerated. The falsehood of 
their united testimony is not to be conceived. It 
is a supposition which we are warranted to con- 
demn, upon tlie strength of any one of the above 
improbabilities taken separately. But the fair way 
of estimating their effect upon the argument, is to 
take them jointly, and, in the language of the doc- 
trine of chances, to take th.e product of all the im- 
probabilities into one another. The argument 
whigh this product furnishes for the truth of the 
Christian testimony, has, in strength and conclu- 
siveness, no parallel in the whole compass of an- 
cient hterature- 

42. The testimony of Celsus is looked upon as 
peculiarly valuable, because it is disinterested.™ 
But if this consideration gives so much v,'e;ght to 
the tesamonv of ('elsas, why should so i^iuch doubt 
.mid sns:>icioii aunex to the testimony of Christian 
-w.-itors;. si^veral of wlioni, y-^ - ' '- ^-- -. liavo 



4B 

fiveii a fuller and more express testimoByto theaur 
theiiticity of the gospels ? In the persecutioiis they 
sustained ; in the obvious tone of sincerity and hoji- 
esty which runs through their writings ; in tiieir 
general agreenieut upon this subject ; in the multi- 
tude of their folio wers? w^ho never could have con- 
fided in men that ventured to commit themselves, 
by the assertion of what was obviously and notori- 
ously false ; iu the clicck whicli the vigilance, both 
of Jews and Fleathens, exercised over every Chris- 
tian writer of that period ; m all these circumstan- 
ceSj they give every evidence of having delivered a 
fair and unpolluted testiinon}^ 

43. II. We shall now look into the New Testa- 
ment itselfj and endeavour to ia}-^ before the rea- 
der the internal marks of truth and honeslV; whicli 
are to be found m it, 

44. Under this head, it may be right to insist up- 
on the minute accnn-acy, which runs through all its 
allusions to the existing manners and circumstances 
of the times. To appreciate the force of tiiis ar- 
gument, it would be right to attend to the peculiar 
situation of Judea, at the time of our Saviour. It 
was then under the dominion of the Roman empe- 
rors, 'ind comes frequently under tlie notice of the 
profane his orians of that period. From this source 
Ave derive a great variety of information, as to the 
manner in which the emperors conducted tlie gov- 
ernment of their different provinces ; what degree 
of indulgence was allov/ed to the religious opinion?,' 
of the people, whom tiiey held in sul)jection ; iu 
liow far they were suifered to live under the 
administration of their own laws ; tlie power 
which was vested in the presidents of provinces r, 
and a number ©f other circumstances relative to the 



44 

criminal and civil jurisprudence of that period. la 
this way, there is a great number of different points 
in which the historians of the New Testament can 
be brought into comparison with the secular histo- 
rians of the age. The history of Christ and his 
apostles contains innumerable referei es to the 
state of public affairs. It is not the history of ob- 
scure and unnoticed individuals. They had at- 
tracted much of the public attention. They had 
been before the governors of the country. They 
had passed through the established forms of justice ; 
and some of them underwent the trial and punish- 
ment of the times. It is easy to perceive, then, 
that the New Testament writers were led to allude 
to a number of these circumstances in the political 
history^ and constitution of the times, which came 
under the cognizance of ordinary historians. This 
was delicate ground for an inventor to tread upon ; 
and particularly, if he lived at an age subsequent to 
the time of his history. He might in this case 
have fabricated a tale, by confining himself to the 
obscure and familiar incidents of private history; 
but it is only for a true and a cotemporary histori- 
an, to sustain a continued accuracy, through his 
minute and numerous allusions to the pubhc policy 
and government of the times. 

45. Within tlie period of the gospel history, Ju- 
dea experienced a good many vicissitudes m the 
state of its government. At one time it formed 
part of a kingdom under Herod the Great. At 
another, it formed part of a smaller government un- 
der Archelaus. It after this came under the direct 
administration of a Roman governor, which form 
was again interrupted for several years, by the el- 
evation of Herod Agrippa, te the sovereign power^ 



45 

as exercised by his grandfather ; and it is at last 
left in the form of a province at the conckision of 
the evangehcal history. Th'')re were also frequent 
changes in the pohtical state of the countries adja- 
cent to Judea ; and which are often alkided to in 
the New Testament. A caprice of the reigning 
emperor, often gave rise to a new form of govern- 
ment, and a new distribution of territory. It will 
be readily conceived, how much these perpetual 
fluctuations in the state of public affairs, both in 
Judea and its neighbourhood, must add to the power 
and difficulty of that ordeal to vdiich the gospel his- 
tory has been subjected. 

46. On this part of the subject, there is no want 
of witnesses with whom to confront the writers of 
the New Testament. In addition to the Roman 
writers, who have touched upon the affairs of Judea, 
we have the benefit of a Jewish historian, who has 
given us a professed history of his own country. 
From him, as was to be expected, we have a far 
greater quantity of copious and detailed narrative^, 
relative to the internal affairs of Judea, to the man- 
ners of the people, and those particulars which are 
connected with their religious belief, arsd ecclesias- 
tical constitution. With many, it wiii be supposed 
to add to the value of his testimony, that he was 
not a Christian ; but that, on the other hand, we 
have every reason to believe him to have been a 
most zealous and determined enemy to the cause. 
It is really a most useful exercise, to pursue the 
harmony which subsists betwixt tiie writers of the 
New Testament, and those Jewish and profane au- 
thors, with whom we bring them into comparison. 
Throughout the whole examination, our attention 
Ts confined to forms of justice j successions of gov- 



46 

eniors in different provinces ; manners, and politi- 
cal institutions. We are therefore apt to forget the 
sacredness of the subject ; and we appeal to all who 
have prosecuted this enquiry, if this circumstance 
is not favourable to their having a closer and more 
decided impression of the trut!» of the gospel histo- 
ry. By instituting a compi risen betwixt the evan- 
gelists and cotemporary authors, anci restricting 
our attention to these points, which come under 
the cognizance of ordinary h.sloiy, we put the apos- 
tles and evangelists on the footing of ordinary his- 
torians; and it is for those, who have actually 
undergone the labour of this examination, to tell 
how much this circumstance adds to the impression 
of their authenticity. The mind gets emancipated 
from the pecuhar delusion, which attaches to the 
sacredness of the subject, and which has the un- 
doubted effect of restraining the confidence of its 
enquiries. The argument assumes a secular com- 
plexion, and the writers of the New Testament are 
restored to that credit, with which the reader deliv- 
ers himself up to any other h'storian, who has a 
much less weight and quantity of historical evidence 
in his favour. 

47. It must be observed, that this opens up to us 
a field of enquiry, which is by far too extensive for 
the limits of the present article. We cannot even 
so much as enter into it, and must restrict ourselves 
to a few general observations on the nature and 
precise effect of the argument. 

48. In the first place, the accuracy of the nu- 
merous allusions to the circumstances of that peri- 
od, which the gospel history embraces, forms a 
strong corroboration of tliat antiquity, winch we 
have already assigned to its writers from external 



47 

testimony. It amounts to a proof, that it is the 
production of authors, who lived antecedent to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and consequently about 
the time that is ascribed to them by all the exter- 
ral testimony, which has already been insisted upon. 
It is that accuracy, which could only be maintain- 
ed by a cotemporary historian. It' would be diffi- 
cult, even for the author of some general speculation^ 
not to betray his time by some occasional allusion 
to the ephemeral customs and institutions of the 
period in which he wrote. But the authors of the 
New Testament run a much greater risk. There 
are five different pieces of that collection, which 
are purely historical, and where there is a continu- 
ed reference to the characters, and politics, and 
passing events of the day. The destruction of Je- 
rusalem swept away the whole fabric of Jewish 
polity, and it is not to be conceived, that the mem- 
ory of a future generation could have retained that 
minute, that varied, thrt intimate acquaintance 
Avith the statistics of a n.ition no longer in exis- 
tence, which is evirc^d in every page of the evan- 
gelical writers. We find, in point of fact, that both 
the Heathen and Christian writers of subsequent 
ages do often betray their ignorance of the partic- 
ular customs which obtained in Judea, during the 
time of our Saviour. And it must be esteemed a 
strong circumstance in- favour of the antiquity of 
the New Testament, that on a subject, in which the 
chances of detection are so numerous, and where 
we can scarcely advance a single step in the nar- 
rative v/itiiout tiie possibility of betraying our time 
l)y some mistaken allusion, it slant's distinguislied 
irom every later ccmposition in being able to bear 



48 

the most miiiute and intimate comparison with the 
cotemporary iiistoiians of that period. 

49. The argiuiient derives great additional 
Btrength, from vievvmg the New Testament^ not as 
one single perform ance, but as a collection of sev- 
eral performances. It is tiie work of no less than 
eight different authors^ who wrote without any ap- 
pearance of concert, who published in different 
parts of the world, and whose v/ritings possess eve- 
ry evidence, both internal and external, of being 
independent productions. Had 6nly one author 
exhibited the same minute accuracy of allusion, it 
would have been esteemed a very strong evidence 
of his antiquity. But when we see so man^/ au- 
thors, exiiibiting such a well sustained and almost 
nnexcepted acciu'acy, tiirough the whole of their 
%'aried and distinct narratives, it seems difficult to 
avoid the conclusion, that they were either the eye* 
witnesses of their own history, or lived about the 
period^ of its accomphshment. 

50. When different historians nndertake the af- 
fairs of the same period, they either derive theii* 
information from one another, or proceed upon 
distinct and independent information of their own. 
Now, it is not difficult to distinguish the copyist 
from the original historian. There is something in 
the very style and manner of an original narrative^j 
which announces its pretensions. It is not possible 
that any one event, or any series of events, should 
make such a similar impression upon two witnesses, 
or dispose them to relate it in the same language, to 
describe it in the same order, to form the same es- 
timate, as to the circumstances which should be 
noticed as important, and those other circurastan- 
ces which should be suppressed as imrnRteri^gl 



43 

Each witness tells tlie thing iii liis own way, makes^ 
use of his own language^ and brings i'orv a d cir- 
cnnistances, which the other might omit aUo- 
gelher, as not essential to the purpose of his nar- 
rative. It is this agreement in the facts, with this 
variety in the manner of descriting them^ that nev- 
er fails to impress upon the enquirer that additional 
conviction J which arises from the concurrence of 
separate and independent testimonies. Now this 
is precisely that kind of coincidence, which subsists 
betwixt the New Testament writers and Josephi^s, 
in their allusions to the peculiar customs and insti- 
tutions of that age. Each party mamtams tlie 
style of original and independent historians. The 
one often omits altogether, or makes only a slight 
^wA distant alhision to what occupies a prominent 
part in the composition of the other. There is not 
the shghtest vestige of any thing like a studied co- 
incidence betwixt them. There is variety, but no 
opposition ; and it says much for the authenticity 
of both histories, that the most scrupulous and at- 
tentive criticism, can scarcely detect a single exam- 
ple of an apparent contradiction in the testimony 
of these dilierent authors, which does not admit of 
a likely, or at least a plausible, reconcihation. 

51. When the difference betwixt two historians 
is carried to the length of a contradiction, it enfee- 
bles the credit of both their testimonies. When the 
agreement is carried to the length of a close and 
scrupulous resemblance in every particular, it de- 
iitroys the credit of one of tlie parties as an inde- 
pendent historian In the case before us, we 
neither perceive this diilerence, nor this j^^reement. 
Such are the variatioiis, that, at first s ght, the 
reader is alarmed with the appearance of very se- 
5 



50 

rious and embarrassing diHicuities. And such m 
the actual coincidence, that the difficulties vanish^ 
^vhen we apply to them the labours of a profound 
and intelligent criticism. Had it been the object of 
the gospel writers to trick out a plausible imposition 
on the credulity of the world, they would have stu- 
died a closer resemblance to the existing author!- 
ities of that period ; nor would they have laid 
themselves open to the superficial brilliancy of 
Voltaire, vv^hich dazzles every imagination, and re- 
posed their vindication with the Lelands and Lard- 
ners of a distant posterity, whose sober erudition 
is so little attended to, and which so few know how 
to appreciate. 

52. In the gospel, we are told that Herod, the 
Tetrach of Galilee, married his brother Philip's 
wife. In Josephus, we have the same story ; only 
he gives a different name to Phillip, an4 calls him 
Herod ; and what adds to the diihculty, there waB 
a Phillip of that f;iniily, whom we knew not to have 
been the first husband of Plerodias. This is a I 
lirst sight a little alarming. But, in the progress of 
our enquiries, we are given to understand from this 
same Josephus, that there were three Herods in the 
same family ; and therefore, no improbability in 
tliere being two Phillips. We also know from the 
histories of that period, that it was quite common 
for the same individual to have two names; and 
this is never more necessary, tlian when employed 
to distinguish brothers who have one name the 
same. The Herod who is called Phillip, is just as 
likely a distinction, as the Simon who is called Pe- 
ter, or the Saul who is called Paul. The name of 
tlie high-priest, at the time of our Saviour's cruci- 
iixiQn, was Caiaphes, according to tlie evangelists. 



51 

According to Joseplius^ the name of tlie liigli-priest 
^t that period was Joseph This would have been 
precisely a difficulty of the same kind, had not Jo- 
isephus happened to mention, that this Joseph was 
also called Caiaphas. Would it have been dealing 
fairly with the evangelists, we ask, to have made 
their credibility depend upon the accidental omis- 
sion of another historian? Is it consistent with any 
acknowledged principle of sound criticism, to bring 
four writers so entirely under the tribunal of Jose- 
phus, each of whom stands as firmly supported by 
all the evidences which can give authority to an 
historian, and have greatly the advantage of him in 
this, that they can add the argument of their con- 
currence to the argument of each separate and in- 
dependent testimony ? It so happens however, in 
the present instance, that even Jewish writers, 
in their narrative of the same circumstance, give 
the name of Phillip to the first husband of Hero- 
dias. We by n^ means conceive, that any foreign 
testimony was necessary for the vindication of the 
evangelists. Still, however, it must go far to dissi- 
pate every suspicion of artifice in the construction 
of their histories. It proved, that, in the confi- 
dence with which they delivered themselves up to 
their own information, they neglected appearance, 
and felt themselves independent of it. This appa- 
rent difficulty J, like many others of the same kind, 
lands us in a stronger confirmation of the honesty 
of the evangelists; and it is delightful to perceive, 
liow truth receives a fuller accession to its splen- 
dour, from the attempts which are made to disgrace 
i^nd to darken it. 

63. On this branch of the argument, the impar- 
ual inquirer must be struck with the little indul- 



62 

gence wliicli infidelSj and even Clnistians, have 
given to tlie evangelical writers. In other casesj 
when we compare the narratives of cotemporary 
historians^ it is not expected, that all the circum- 
stances alluded to by one will be taken notice of by 
the rest ; and it often happens, that an event or a 
custom is admitted upon the faith of a single histo- 
rian ; and the silence of all other writers is not suf- 
fered to attach suspicion or discredit to his testimo- 
ny. It IS an allowed principle, that a scrupulous 
resemblance betwixt two histories is very far from 
necessary to their being held consistent with one 
another. And what is more, it sometimes happens, 
that with cotemporary historians, there may be an 
apparent contradiction, and the credit of both par- 
ties remain as entire and unsuspicious as before. 
Posterity is in these cases disposed to make the most 
liberal allowances. Instead of calling it a contra- 
diction, they often call it a difficulty. They are 
sensible, that, in many instances, a seeming variety 
of statements has, upon a more extensive knowl- 
edge of ancient history, admitted of a perfect 
reconciliation. Instead, then, of referring tlie diifi- 
culty in question to the inaccuracy or bad foith of 
any of the parties, tliey, with more justness and 
Hiore modesty, refer it to their own ignorance, and 
to that obscurity which neces;^ririly hangs over the 
history of every remote age. These principles are 
suffered to have great influence in every similar 
investigation ; but so soon as, instead of a similar. 
it becomes a sacred investigation, every ordinary 
principle is abandoned, and the suspicion annexed 
to the teachers of religion is carried to the derelic- 
tion of all that candour and liberality with whicli 
ijvery 9ther document of antiquit}^ is judged of anti 



5B 

appreciated. How does it happen^ that the aiUbor-- 
liy of Josephus should be acquiesced in as a first 
-principle, while every step, in the narrative of the 
evangelists, must have foreign testimony to confirm 
and support it ? How conies it, that the silence of 
Josephus should be construed into an impeachment 
of the testimony of the evangelists, while it is never 
admitted for a single mbmeat, that the silence of 
the evangelists can impart the shghtest blemish to 
the testimony of Josej>hus ? How comes it, that 
the supposition of two Phillips in one family should 
throw a damp of scepticism over the gospel narra- 
tive, w^hile the onty circumstance which renders 
that supposition necessary is the single testimony 
of Josephus ; in which very testimony it is neces- 
sarily implied, that there are two Herods in that 
same family ? How comes it, that the evangelists, 
with as much internal, and a vast deal more of ex« 
ternal evidence in their favour, should be made to 
stand before Josephus, like so many prisoners at 
the bar of justice ? In any other case, we are con- 
vinced, that this would be looked upon as rough 
handling. But we are not sorry for it. It has giv- 
en more triumph and confidence to the argu- 
ment. And it is no small addition to our faith, that 
its first teachers have survived an examination, 
w^hich, in point of rigour and severity, we believe 
to be quite unexampled in the annals of criticism. 
54. It is always looked upon as a favourable pre- 
sumption, when a story is told circumstantially. 
The art and safety of an impostor is to confine his 
narrative to generals, and not to commit himself by 
too minute a specification of time and place, and 
j^llusion to the manners or occurrences of the day. 
Tiie more of circumstance that we introduce into 
5* 



54 

a story, we multiply llie cliraices of detection, il' 
false; and therefore^ where a great deal of circum- 
stance is iiitrodiicedj it proves, thnt the narrator 
feels the confidence of truth, and labours under no 
apprehension for the fate of his narrative. Even 
thougii we have it not in our power tp verify the 
truth of a single clrcuiriStance,yet the mere proper- 
ty of a story being circumstantial is always fell to 
carry an evidence in its favour. It imparts a njore 
flimiliar air of life and reahty to the narrative. It 
is easy to believe, that the groundwork of a stor-r 
may be a fabrication ; but it requires a more re- 
fined species of imposture than we can well con- 
ceivc; to construct a harmonious and well sustained 
narrative, abounding in minute and circumstantial 
details which support one another, and where, with 
ail our experience of renl i'^fe, we can detect no- 
thing misplaced, or inconsistent, or improbable. 

5o» To prosecute this argument in all its extent, 
it would be necessray to present the reader with a 
complete analysis or examination of ll^e gospel iris- 
tory. But the most snperiicial observer earmot fail 
to perceive, that it maintains, in a very high degree^ 
the character of being a circumstantial nr.rrative. 
When a mira^cle is recorded, we have generally the 
name of the town or neigh'rourhood where it hap- 
pened ; the names of tlie people concerned ; the 
effect upon the hearts, and coiivictions of tfie bye- 
standers ; the argnments and examinations it gave 
birth to : and all that miiiis-'eiKss of reftrrence and 
description which impress^':; a i^U-ong character of 
reality upon the whole history. If we take aiong 
with US the time at whicli t]];3 li^story made its ap- 
Clearance, the ar2:ument becGl:^::: -.r-jh slroni^rr. It 
does not merciy carry a pixs-iiup^::^-:: m \i$ iav 



y o>Ui 



from being a circumstaDtial iiistory : It carries a 
proof in its fovour^ because these circumstances 
T^'ere coiripletely within tlie reach and exaDriination 
of those to whom it was addressed. Had the evan- 
gelists been false historians^ tliey would not have 
committed themselves upon so many particulars. 
The}^ would not have furnished the vigilant inquir- 
ers of that period with such an effectual instrument 
for bringing them into discredit with the people : 
nor foolishly supplied;, in every page of their nar- 
rative, so many materials for a cross-examination^ 
which would infallibly liave disgraced them. 

56. Now^ we of this age can institute the same 
cross-examination. We can compare the evangeli- 
al writers with cotemporary authors, and verify a 
irmber of circumstances in the history, and gov- 
rnmbiit, and peculiar econoni}/ of the Jewish peo- 
le. We therefore have it in our power to institute 
' cross-examination upon the writers of the New 
Testament : and the freedom and frequency of their 
'illusions to these circumstances supply us with am- 
le materials for it. The fact, that they are borne 
xKit in their minute and incidental allusions by the 
testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight 
<yf what iias been called circumstantial evidence in 
their favour. As a specimen of the argument, let 
us confine our observations to the history of our 
Saviour's trial, and execution and burial. They 
bro'jght him to Pontius Pilate. We know both from 
Tacitus and Josephus, that he was at that time gov- 
ernor of Judea. A sentence from him was neces- 
sary, before they could proceed to the execution of 
Jesus ; and we know that the power of life and death 
was usually vested in the Roman governor. Our 
Saviour was treated with derision ; and this we know 



56 

to liave been a customary practice at that ihney 
previous to the execution of criminalsj and during 
the time of it. Pilate scourged Jesus^ before he 
gave him up to be crucilied. We know from ancient 
authors, that this was a very usual practice among 
the Romans. The account of an execution gene- 
rally run in this form : — He was stripped, whipped, 
and beheaded or executed. According to tlie evart- 
gehsts, his accusation was written on the top of the 
cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, thai 
the crime of the person to be executed was affixed 
to the instrument of his punishment. Accordirig lo 
^he evangehsts, this accusation was written in three 
different languages 5 and we know from Josephus, 
that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have oJl 
public advertisements written in this manner. Ac- 
cording to tiie evangelists, Jesus had to bear his 
cross ; and we know from other sources of informa- 
tion, that this was the constant practice of these 
times. According to the evangehsts, the ]:>ody of 
Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of 
friends. We know that, unless the criminal was 
infamous, this was the law, or the custom with all 
Roman governors. 

57. These, and a few more particulars of the 
same kind, occur within the compass of a single 
page of the evangelical history. The circumstan- 
tial manner of the history aifords a presumption Jn 
its favour, antecedent to all examination into the 
truth of the circumstances themselves. But it makes 
a strong addition to the evidence, wlien we find, 
that in all the subordinate parts of the main story, 
the evangelists maintain so great a consistency, with 
the testimony of other autliors, and v^'itli all that 
we ca!i collect iVprn other sources of iufbrmatioD, as 



h7 

i(? iiic inanners and institutions of that period. It 
is difiicuit to conceive, in the first instance, how the 
inventor of a fabricated story would hazard such a 
number of circumstances, each of them supplying 
a point of comparison with other authors, and giv- 
ing to the enquirer an additional chance of detect- 
ing the imposition. And it is still more difiicuit to 
believe, that truth should have been so artfully 
blended with falsehood in the composition of this 
narrative, particularly as we perceive nothing like 
a forced introduction of any one circumstance. 
There appears to be nothing out of place, nothing 
thrust in with the view of imparting an air of pro- 
babihty to the history. The circumstance upon 
which we bring the evangelists into comparison with 
profane authors, is often not intimated in a direct 
form, but in the form of a slight or distant allusion. 
There is not the most remote appearance of its 
being fetched or sought for. It is brought in acci- 
dentally, and flows in the most natural and unde- 
signed manner out of the progress of the narrative. 
58. The circumstance, that none of the gospel 
writers are inconsistent witli one another, falls bet- 
ter under a different branch of the argument. It is 
enough for our present purpose, that there is no sin- 
gle writer inconsistent with himself. It often hap- 
pens, that falsehood carries its own refutation along 
with it ; and that, through the artful disguises which 
are employed in the construction of a fabricated 
story, we can often detect a flaw or a contradiction, 
which condemns the authority of the whole narra- 
tive. Now, every single piece of the New Testa- 
ment wants this mark or character of falsehood. 
The different parts are found to sustain, and harmo- 
nise, and flow out of each other. Each has at Ica^t 



68 

tlie merit of being a consistent narrative. For any 
thing we see upon the face of it, it maybe true, and 
a further hearnig must be given before we can be 
justified in rejecting it as the tale of an impostor. 

59. There is another mark of falsehood, which 
each of the gospel narratives appears to be exempt- 
ed from. There is little or no parading about their 
own integrity. We can collect their pretensions to 
credit from the history itself, but we see no anxious 
display of these pretensions. We cannot fail to 
perceive the force of that argument, which is deriv- 
ed from tiie publicity of the Christian miracles, and 
the very minute and scrupulous examination which 
they ha^ to sustain, from the rulers and official men 
of Judea. But this pubhcity, and these examina- 
tions, are simply recorded by the evangelists. 
There is no boastful reference to these circumstan- 
ces, and no ostentatious display of the advantage 
which they give to the Christian argument. They 
bring their story forward in the shape of a direct 
and unencumbered narrative, and deliver themselves 
with that simplicity and unembarrassed confidence, 
which nothing but their consciousness of truth and 
the perfect leeling of their own strength and consis- 
tency can account for. They do not v/rite, as if 
their object was to carry a point that v/as at all 
doubtful or conspicuous. It is simply to transmit to 
the men of other times, and of other countries, a 
memorial of the events whicli led to the establish- 
ment of the Christian religion in the world. In the 
prosecution of their narrative, we challenge tlie 
most refined judge of the human character to point 
out a single symptom of diffidence, in the truth of 
their own story, or of art to cloak this diffidence 
from the notice of the most severe and vigilant ob- 



59 

.servers* The manner of the New Testament wri* 
tors does not carry in it the slightest idea of its being 
a put on manner. It is quite natural, quite un- 
guarded, and free of all apprehensions that their 
story is to meet with an}^ discredit or contradiction 
from any of those numerous readers, who had it 
fully in their power to verify or to expose it. We 
see no expedient made use of to obtain or to con- 
cihate the acquiescence of their readers. They 
appear to feel as if they did not need it. They 
deliver what they have to say in a round and unvar- 
nished manner; nor IS it in general accompanied 
with any of those strong asseverations, by which an 
impostor so often attempts to practice upon the 
credulity of his victims. • 

60. Ill the simple narrative of the evangelists^ 
they betray no feeling of v/onder at the extraordi- 
nary nature of the events which they record, and 
no consciousness that what they are announcing is 
to excite any wonder among their reaclers. This 
appears to us to be a very strong circumstance. 
Had it been the newly broached taie,of an impos- 
tor, he would, in all likelihood, have feigned aston- 
ishment himself, or at least have laid his account 
with the doubt and astonisimient of those to whom 
it was addressed. When a person tells a wonderful 
story to a company who are totally unacquainte€l 
with it, he must be sensible, not merely of the sur- 
prise which is excited in the minds of the hearers, 
but of a corresponding sympathy in h*s own mind 
with the feelings of those who listen to him. He 
lays his account with the wonder, if not the incre- 
dulity, of his hearers ; and this distinctly appears 
in the terms with which he delivers his story, and 
"the manner in which he introduces it. It makes a 



60 

wide difference; if on the other hand, he tells tlit 
same story to a company, who have long heen ap- 
prised of the chief circumstances, but who listen to 
him for the mere purpose of obtaining a more dis- 
tinct and particular narrative. Now, in as far as 
we can collect from the manner of the evangelists, 
they stand in this last predicament. They do not 
write, as if they were imposing a novelty upon their 
readers. In the language of Luke, they write for 
the sake of giving more distinct information ; and 
that the readers might know the certainty of those 
things y ivherein thnj had been instructed. In the pro- 
secution of this task, they delivered themselves witli 
the most famihar and unembarrassed simplicity. 
They do not, appear to anticipate the surprise of 
their readers, or to be at all aware, that the m.srveK 
lous nature of their story is to be an obstacle to it?> 
credit or reception in the neighbourhood. At the 
fn'st perfofmance of our Saviour's miracles, there 
was a strong and a widely spread sensation over 
the whole conntr}'. His fams ivent ahrooAj and all 
jyeople were a:i:azed. This is quite natural ; and tlie 
circumstance of no surprise being- either felt or 
anticipated by the evangelists, in the writing of their 
history, can best be accounted for by the truth of 
the liistory itself, that the experience of years had 
blunted the edge of novelty, and rendered miracles 
familiar, not only to them, but to all the people to 
whom they addressed themselves. 

61. What appears to ns a most striking internal 
evidence for the truth of the gospel, is that perfect 
unity of mind and of purpose which is ascribed to 
our Saviour. Had he been an imposter, he could 
not have foreseen all the fluctuation's of his history ; 
ami yet no expression of surprise is recorded to 



61 

have escaped from him. No event appears to have 
cauglit him unprepared. We see no sliifiing of 
doctrine or sentiment, with a view to accommodate 
to new or unexpected circumstances. His parables 
and warnings to his disciples, give sufficient intima- 
tioj!, that he laid his account with all those events, 
'whicli appeared to his unenlightened friends to be 
so untoward, and so promising. In every explana- 
tion of his objects, we see the perfect consistency 
of a mind, before whose prophetic eye all futurity 
lay open ; and w hen the events of this futurity came 
round, he met them, not as chances that were un- 
foreseen, but as certainties which he had provided 
for. This consistency of his views is supported 
through all the variations of his history, and it 
stands finally contrasted in the record of the evan- 
gehsts, with the misconceptions, the snrprises, the 
disappointments of ins followers. The gradual pro- 
gress of their minds from the splendid anticipations 
of earthly grandeur, to a full acquiescence in the 
doctrine of a crucified Saviour, throws a stronger 
light on the perfect unity of purpose and of concep- 
tion which animates his, and which can only be ac- 
counted for by the inspiration that filled and enli-< 
vened it. It may have been possible enough to de- 
scribe a self-s 'J stained example of this contrast from 
an actual history before us. It is difficult, however, 
to conceive, how it could be sustained so well, and 
in a manner so apparently artless, by means of in- 
vention, and particularly when the inventors made 
their own errors and their own ignorance form pari 
of tlie fabrication. 

62. HI. There was nothins: ^^ the situation of the 
-fiew TevStament waiters, vvhich leads us to pere^fnvc 
6 



62 

that Ihey had any possible inducement for publisli* 
iug a falsehood. 

63. We hjive not to allege the mere testimony of 
the Christian writers, lor the danger to which the 
profession of Christianity exposed all its adherents 
at that period. We have the testunony of Tacitus 
to this effect. We have innumerable allusions, or 
express intimations of the j-aaie circumstance in the 
Roman hsioriaiis. The treatment and persecution 
of the Christians makes a principal figure in the 
affairs of the empire; and tiiere is no point better 
established in ancient history, than that the bare 
circumstance of being a Christian brought many to 
the punishment of deatl^, and exposed all to the 
danger of a suffering tlie most appalhng and repul- 
sive to the feelings of our nature. 

64. It is not difficult to perceive why the Roman 
government, in its treatment of Christians, departed 
from its usual principles of toleration. We know it 
to have been their uniform practice, to allow every 
indulgence to the religious behef of those different 
countries in which they established themselves. 
The truth is, that such an indulgence demanded of 
them no exertion of moderation or principle. It 
\vas quite consonant to the spirit of Paganism. A 
different country worshipped different gods, but it 
was a general principle of Paganism, that each 
country had its gods, to which the inhabitants of 
that country owed their pecuhar homage and vene- 
ration. In this way there was no interference betwixt 
the different religions which prevailed in the world. 
It fell in with the policy of the Roman government 
to allow the fullest toleration to other religions, and 
it demanded no sacrifice of principle. It was even 
a dictate of principle with them to respect the gods* 



63 

«f other countries, and the violation of a religiou 
different from their own seems to have been felt, 
not merely as a departure from policy or justice, 
but to be viewed with the same sentiment of horror, 
which is annexed to blasphemy or sacrilege. So 
long as we are under Paganism, the truth of one 
rehgion does not involve in it the falsehood or re- 
jection of another. In respecting the rehgion of 
another country, we did not abandon our own ; nor 
did it follow, that the inhabitants of that other coun- 
try annexed any contempt or discredit to the reli- 
gion in which we had been educated. In this 
mutual reverence for the rehgion of each other, no 
principle was departed from, and no object of vene. 
ration abandoned. It did not involve in it the 
denial or relinquishment of their own gods, but only 
the addition of so many more gods to their cata- 
logue. 

65. In this respect, however, the Jews stood dis- 
tinguished f/om every other people within the limits^ 
of the Roman empire. Their religious belief car- 
ried in it something more than attachment to their 
own S} stem. It carried in it the contempt and 
detestation of every other. Yet, in spite of this 
circumstance, their rehgion was protected by the 
mild and equitable toleration of tiie Roman govern- 
ment. The truth is, that there was nothing in the 
habits or character of the Jews, which was calcu- 
lated to give much disturbance to the establishments 
of other countries. Though they admitted converts 
from other nations, yet their spirit of proselytisni 
was far from being of that active or adventurous 
kind, which could alarm the Roman government for 
the safety of any existing institutions. Their high 
md exclusive veneration for their own system, gav.o 



64 

an universal disdain to the Jewish character, whicli 
was not at all inviting to foreigners; but still, as 
it led to nothing mischievous in point of effect^ 
it seems to have been overlooked by the Roman 
government, as a piece of impotent vanity. 

66. But the case was widely different with the 
Christian system. It did not confine itself to the 
denial or rejection of every other system. It was 
for imposing its own excliisive authority over tlie 
consciences of all, and for detaching as many as it 
could from their allegiance to the religion of their 
Dwn country. It carried on its forehead all the 
offensive characters of a monopoly, and not merely 
excited resentment by the supposed arrogance of 
its pretensioris, but from the rapidity and extent of 
its innovations, spread an alarm over the whole Ro- 
juan empire for the security of all its establishments* 
Accordingly, at the commencement of its progress, 
so long as it was confined to Juf^ea, and the imme* 
diate neighbourhood, it seems to have been in per- 
fect safety from the persecutions of the Roman 
government. It wp.s at first looked upon as a mere 
modification of Judaisiii, and that the first Chris- 
tians differed from tlie rest of their countrymen, 
only in certain questions of their own sirperstition. 
For a few years after the crucifixion of our Saviour, 
it seems to have excited no alarm on the part of 
the Roman emperors^ whcf did not depart from their 
usual maxims of toleration, till they be^an to un- 
derstand the magnitude of its pretensions, and the 
unlooked for success which attended them. 

67. In the course of a very few years, after lis 
first promulgation, it drew down upon it the hostility 
of the Roman government; and the fact is un- 
doubted, that some of its first teachers^ who an*. 



65 

aounced themselves to be the companions of ouf 
Saviour, and the eye-witnesses of all the remarkable 
events in his history, suffered martyrdom for their 
adherence to the rehgion which they taught. 

68. The disposition-of the Jews to the religion of 
Jesus was no less hostile; and it manifested itself at 
a still earlier stage of the business. The causes of 
this hostility are obvious to all, who are in the slight- 
est degree conversant with the history of those 
times. It is true that the Jews did not at all times 
possess the power of life and death, nor was it com- 
petent for them to bring the Christians to execution 
by the exercise of legal authority. Still, however, 
their powers of mischief were considerable. Their 
wishes had always a certain controul over the mea- 
sures of the Roman governor; and we know, that 
it was this controul wiiicii was the means of extort- 
ing from Pilate the unrighteous sentence, by which 
the very first teacher of our rehgion was brought to 
a cruel and ignominious death. We also know, tliat 
under Herod Agrippa, the power of life and death 
was vested in a Jewish sovereign, and that this pow- 
er was actually exerted against the most distinguish- 
ed Christians of the time. Add to this, that the 
Jews had, at all times, the power of infiictiug the 
lesser punishments. They could whip, they could 
imprison. Besides all this, the Christians had to 
brave the frenzy of an enraged multitude ; and some 
of them actually suffered martyrdom in the violence 
of the popular commotions. 

69. Nothing is more evident than tlie utter dis" 
grace which was annexed by the world at large to 
the profession of Christianity at that period. Ta- 
citus calls it " snperstitio exitiabilis/^ and accuses 
the Christians of enmity to mankind. By Epicte- 

6* 



66 

tus and others, their heroism is termed obstinacvp 
and it was g^aeraliy treated by the Roman gover- 
nors as the i ifatuation of a miserable and despised 
people. Th ^re was none of that glory annexed to 
it v/hich blazes around the martyrdom of a patriot 
or a philosopher. That constancy, which, in another 
cause, would have made them illustrious, was held 
to be a contemptible folly, which only exposed them 
to the derision and insolence of the multitude. A 
name and a reputation in the world might sustain 
the dying moments of Socrates or Regulus, but 
what earthly principles can account for the intre- 
pidity of those poor and miserable outcasts, who 
consigned themselves to a voluntary martyrdom ni 
the cause of their religion ? 

70. Having premised these observations, we offer 
the following alternative to the mind of every candid 
enquirer. The first Christians either delivered a 
sincere testimony, or they imposed a story upon the 
world which they knew to be a fabrication. 

71. The persecutions to which the first Christians 
voluntarily exposed themselves, compel us to adopt 
the first part of tlie alternative. It is not to be 
conceived, that a man would resign fortune, and 
character, and life, in the assertion of what he knew 
to be a falsehood. The first Christians must have 
believed then' story to be true ; and it only remains 
to prove, that if they believed it ton3e true, it must 
be true indeed. 

72. A voluntary martyrdom must be looked upon 
as the highest possible evidence which it is in the 
power of man to give of his sincerit}^. The mar- 
tyrdom of Socrates has never been questioned, as 
an undeniable proof of the sincere devotion of his 
mind to the principles of that philosophy for which 



07 

he siifferecL Tlie deatii of Arcli-bishop Crainner 
will be allowed by all, to be a decisive evi^^ence of 
his sincere rejection of what he conceived to be tlie 
errors of Popery, and Ids tlioroiioli conviction in 
the truth of the opposite system. When the council 
of Geneva burnt Servetos, no one will question the 
sincerity of tlie latter's belief, however ninch ho 
may question the truth of it. Now, in all tbese 
cases, the proof goes no further, than to esta])Iish 
the sincerit}^ of the m^rtji^s belief. It goes but a 
little way, indeed, in establishing the justness of it. 
This is a diflerent question. A man may be mista- 
ken, though be is sincere. His errors, if they are 
not seen to be such, v/i 11 exercise ail the influence 
and authority of trulii over him. Mart5TS have bled 
on the opposite sides of the question. It is impos- 
sible, theuy to rest on this circumstance ns an argu- 
ment for the truth of either S3^stem, but the argu- 
ment is always deemed incontrovertible, in as far as 
it goes to establish the sincerity of eacJi of the par- 
ties, and that both died in the firm conviction of the 
doctrines which they professed. 

73. Now the martyrdom of the first Christians^ 
stands distinguished from all other examples by this 
circumstance, that it not merely proves the since- 
rity of the martyr's belief^ but it also proves, that 
what he believed was true. In other cases of mar- 
tyrdom, the sufferer, when he lays down his lifcj; 
gives his testimony to the truth of an opinion. In 
the case of the Christians, when they laid down their 
lives, they gave their testimony to the truth of a 
. fact, of which they affn-med themselves to be the 
eye and the ear witnesses. The sincerity of both, 
testimonies is tinquestionable : but it is only in the 
h-^ir^r rr,^'^ iii^t th/^ ^yn\\\ of the testimoDv follows' 



68 

as a iiccessaiy consequence of its sincerity. An 
opinion comes under the cognizance of the under- 
standing, ever hable, as we all know, to error and 
delusion. A fact comes under the cognizance of 
the senses, which have ever been esteemed as in- 
faUible, when they give their testimony to such plain, 
and obvious, and palpable appearances, as those 
which make up the evangelical story. We are still 
at liberty to question the philosojhy of Socrates, or 
the orthodoxy of Cranmer and Servetus; but if we 
were told by a Christian teacher, in the solemnity 
of his dying hour, and with the dreadful apparatus 
of martyrdom before him, that he saw Jesus after 
he had risen from the dead ; that he conversed with 
him many days j that he put his hand into the print 
of his sides; and, in the ardour of his joyful con- 
viction, exclaimed, '^ My Lord, and my God !'' we 
should feel that there was no truth in the world, if 
this language and this testimony could deceive us. 
74. If Christianity be not true, then the first Chris- 
tians must have been mistaken as to the subject of 
their testimony. This supposition is destroyed by 
the nature of the subject. It was not testimony to 
a doctrine, which might deceive the understanding. 
It was something more than testimony to a dream, 
or a trance, or a midnight fancy, which might de- 
ceive the imagination. It was testimony to a multi- 
tude, and a succession of palpable facts, which could 
never have deceived the senses, and which preclude 
all possibility of mistake, even though it had been 
the testimon}^ only of one individual. But when in 
addition to this we consider, that it is Xhe testimony, 
not of one, but of many individuals; that it is a 
story repeated in a variety of forms, biu substan- 
tially the same; that is ihe concurring testimony of 



69 

different eye-wilnesscs^ or the companions of eye- 
witnesses— -we may, after tliis, take refuge in the 
idea of falsehood and coUusioo, but it is not to be 
admitted, that those eigiit different writers of the 
New Testament, could have all 1)1 mdered the matter 
with such method, and such uniformity. 

75. We know tliat, in spite of the magnitude of 
their sulTerings, there are infidels who, driven from 
the second part of the alternative, liave recurred to 
the first, and have ailirnied, that the glory of esta- 
bhshing a new rehgion, induced the first Christians 
to assert, and to persist in assertmg, wluit tlie}^ knev*.' 
to be a falsehood. But (though we shoidd be anti- 
cipating the last branch of tlie argument) they for- 
get, tfiat we have the conciuTerice of two parties 
to the truth of Christianity, and that it is the con- 
duct only of one of the parties, which can be ac- 
counted for by tlie supposition in question. The 
two parties are the teachers and the tauglit. The 
former may aspire to the ^lory of founding a new 
fmih ; but what glory did the latter propose to 
themselves from being the dupes of an imposition 
so ruinous to every earthly interest, and held in 
such low and disgraceful estimation by the world at 
large ? Ahnxidon the teachers of Christianity to 
every imputation, v/hich infidelity, on the rack for 
conjectures to give plaiJ3il)ility to its system, can 
desire ; liow shall ve explain the concurrence of 
its disciples? There maybe a glory in leadings 
bot we see no glory in being led. if Christianity 
were fnlse, f^^nd Paul had the effrontery to appeal 
to li.s 500 living witnesses, wjiom he alleges to 
have seen Christ after his resurrection ; the sub* 
missive acquiescence of his disciples remains a very 
ioervplicabie circumstance. The same Paul, in hi]5 



70 

epistles to the Corinthians, tells them that some of 
them had the gift of healing, and the power of 
working miracles ; and that tlie sign of an apostle 
had been wrought among them in wonders and 
mighty deeds. A man asp ring to the glory of 
an accredited teacher, would never have commit- 
ted himself on a subject, where his falsehood could 
have been so readily exposed. And in the vener- 
ation with which we know his epistles to have been 
preserved by the church of Cormth, we have not 
merely the testimony of their writer to the truth of 
the Christian miracles, but the testimony of a whole 
people who had no interest in bemg deceived. 

76. Had Christianity been false, the reputation 
of its first teachers lay at the niercy of every indi- 
vidual among the numerous proselytes which they 
had gained to their system. It may not be compe- 
tent for an unlettered peasant to detect the absurdi- 
ty of a doctrine ; but he can at all times lift his 
testimony against a fact, said to have happened in 
his presence, and under the observation of his sen- 
ses- Now it so happens, that in a number of the 
epistles, there are allusions or express intimations of 
the miracles that had been wrought in the different 
churches to which these epistles are addressed. 
How comes it, if it be all a fabrication, that it was 
never exposed ? We know that some of the disci- 
ples were driven by the terrors of persecuting vio- 
lence to resign their profession. How should it 
happen, that none of them ever attempted to vin- 
dicate their apostacy, by laying open the artifice 
and insincerity of their Christian teachers ? We 
may be sure that such a testimony would have been 
highly acceptable to the existing authorities of that 
period. The Jews would have made the most of 



71 

it ; and the vigilant and discerning officers of the 
Roman government would not have failed to turn it 
to account. The mystery would have been expos- 
ed and laid open, and the curiosity of latter ages 
would have been satisfied as to the wonderful and 
unaccountable steps, by which a religion could 
njake such head m the world, though it rested its 
whole authority on facts ; the falsehood of which 
was accessible to all who were at the trouble to en- 
quire about them. But no I We hear of no such 
testnnony from the apostates of that period. We 
read of some, who, agonised at the reflection of 
their treachery, returned to their first profession, 
and expiated, by martyrdom, the guilt which they 
felt they had incurred by their dereliction of the 
truth. This furnishes a strong example of the pow- 
er of conviction, and when we jom with it, that it 
is conviction in the integrity of those teachers, who 
appealed to miracles which had been wrought 
among them, it appears to us a testimony in favour 
of our religion which is altogether irresistible. 

77. IV. But this brings us to the last division of 
the argument, viz. that the leading facts in the his- 
tory of the gospel are corroborated by the testimo- 
ny of others. 

78. The evidence we have already brought for- 
ward for the antiquity of the New Testament, and 
the veneration in which it was held from the earli- 
est ages of the church, is an implied testimony of 
all Christians to the truth of the gospel history. By 
proving the auihenticity of St. Paul's epistles to the 
Corinthians, we not merely establish his testimony 
to the truth of the Christian miracles ; we establish 
the additional testimon}^ of the whole church of 
Corinth, who %YQuld ?iever have respected these 



epistles^ if Paul had ventured upon a falsehood S0 
open to deteclioK, as the assertion, that miracles 
were wrouglit among them, which not a single indi- 
vidual ever witnessed. By proving tlie authenticity 
of the New Testament at large, we secure, not 
merely tiiat argument which is founded on the tes- 
timony and concurrence of tliose immense multi- 
tudes, wlio in distaot countries submitted to the New 
Testament as the rule of their faitJi. The testim,ony 
of the teachers, v/hether we take into consideration 
tlie su!:?ject of that testimony, or the circumstanceis^ 
under which it was delivered, is of itself a stronger 
argument for tlie truth of the gospel histoiy tium 
can be alleged for the truth of any other history 
which has been transmitted down to us from ancient 
tinies^ TliC concurrence of the taught carries along 
v^'itii it a host of additional teslinionies, which gives 
an evidence to the evangelical story, that it is alto- 
getlier unexampled. On a poiiVi of ordinary history, 
the testunoiiy of Tacitus is held decisive, because 
it is iwi contradicted. The history of the New 
Teslamei:it is not only not contradicted, but con« 
firnjed by the strongest possible expressions which 
men can give of their acquiescence in its truth ; b}^ 
thousands who Vv'ere either :)gent or eye-witnesses 
of the transactions recorded, who could not be de- 
ceived, who had no interest^ and no glory to gain 
by supporting a falsehood « and who, s>y their suf^ 
leriiigs in the cause of what tiiey ])rote::^sed to be 
their belief^ gave t-'e ^ evidence that humaii 

nature can o-ive ofs;.: ,^ . 

79. In ;i ■;; circumsiance, it may be perceived^ 
how much ihe cviden^^'' ^*^' ^'lis^istianity p'ocs beyond 
all ordinary Id St or vc;: ;(?. A prof me histo-* 

linii relates r --■•:' ->, cv^^.'-ri which happen in a . 



7g 

particular age ; and we count it well^ if it be his 
own age, and if the history which he gives us be the 
testimony of a cotemporary author. Another his- 
torian succeeds him at the distance of years, and by 
repeating the game story gives additional evidence 
of his testimony to its truth. A third historian per- 
haps goes over the same ground, and lends another 
confirmation to the history. And it is thus, by col- 
lecting all the hghts which are thinly scattered over 
the tract of ages and of centuries, that we obtain 
all the evidence wiiich can be got, and all the evi- 
dence that is generally wished for. 

80. Now, there is room for a thousand presump- 
tions, which, if admitted, would overturn the whole 
of this evidence. For any thing we know, the first 
historians may have had some interest in disguising 
the truth, or substituting in its place a falsehood, 
and a fabrication. True, it has not be^ contra- 
dicted, but they form a very small number of men 
who feel strongly or particularly interested in a 
question of history. The literary and speculative 
men of that age may have perhaps been engaged 
in other pursuits, or their testimonies may have per- 
ished in the wreck of centuries. The second histo- 
rian may have been so far removed in point of time 
from the events of his narratives, that he can furnish 
us not with an independent, but with a derived tes- 
timony. He may have copied his account from the 
I original historian, and the falsehood have come 
' down to us in the shape of an authentic and well 
attested history. Presumptions may be multiplied 
jigWithout end, yet in spite of them, there is a natural 
' jlfeconfidence in the veracity of man, which disposes 
, . Jjius to as firm a belief in many of the factf, of an- 



74 

cient history, as in the occurrences of the present 
day. 

81. The history of the gospel, however, stands 
distinguished from all other history, by the uninter- 
rupted nature of its testimony, which carries down 
its evidences, without a chasUn, fi'om Us earliest pro- 
jxiulgation to the present day. We do not speak of 
the su[>erior weight and splendour of its evidences, 
at the iirst publication of that history, as bemg 
supported not merely by the testimony of one, but 
by the concurrence of several hidependent witness- 
es. We do not speak of its subsequent writers, who 
follow one another in a far closer and more crowd- 
ed train, than there is any other example of in the 
history or lilei ature of the world. We speak of the 
gtrong though unwritten testimony of its numerous 
proselytes, who, m the very fact ^of their prosely- 
tism, givslhe strongest possible confirmation to the 
gosp«], and fdl up every chasm in the recorded evi- 
dence of ptist times. 

82. In the written testimonies for the truth of the 
Claistian religion, Barnabas comes next in order to 
the first promulgators of the evangelical story. He 
was a cotemporary of the apostles, and writes a very 
few years after the publication of the pieces which 
make up the New Testament. Clement follows, 
who was a feHow4abourer of Faul^ and writes an 
epistle in the name of the church of Rome^ to the 
church of Corinth. The written testimonies foMow 
one another with a closeness and a rapidity of 
which there is no example; but wliat we insist on 
nt present, is the unwritten and implied testimony 
of tlie people who composed these two churches* 
There can be no fact better establislied, than that 
these two churches were planted in the days of the 



75 

apostles, and that the epistles which were respec- 
tively addressed to them, were held in the utoiost 
authority and veneration. There is no doubt, that 
the leadhig facts of the gospel histoiy were familiar 
to them ; that it was in the power of many indivi- 
duals amongst them to verify these facts, either by 
their ov/n personal observation, or by an actual 
conversation with eye witnesses ; and that in par- 
ticular, it was in the power of almost every indi- 
vidual in the church of Corinth, either to verify the 
miracles which St. Paul alludes to, in his epistle to 
that church, or to detect and expose the imposition, 
had there been no foundation for such an allusion. 
What do we see ni all this, but the strongest possi- 
ble testimony of a whole people to the truth of the 
Christian miracles: there is nothing like this ni 
common history, the formation of a society, which 
can only be explained by the history of the gospel, 
and where the conduct of every individual furnishes 
a distinct pledge and evidence of its truth. And to 
have a full view of the argument, we mcst reflect, 
that it is not one, but many societies scattered over 
the different countries of the world; that the prin- 
ciple, upon which each society was formed, was the 
''divine authority of Christ and his apostles, resting 
upon the recorded miracles of the New Testament ; 
that these miracles were wrought with a pubhcity, 
and at a nearness of time, which rendered them 
accessible to the enquiries of all, for upwards of 
half a century; that nothing but the power of con- 
viction could liave induced the people of that age 
to embrace a religion so disgraced and so persecut- 
ed; that every temptation was held out for its dis- 
ciples to abandon it : and that though some of them, 
overpowered by the terrors of punishment, were 



7^ 

driven to apostacy, yet not one of them has left us 
a testimony which can impeach the miracles of 
Christianity, or the integrity of its iirst teachers. 

83. It may be observed, that in pursuing the line 
of continuity from the days of the apostles, the writ- 
ten testimonies for the truth of the Christian mira- 
cles follow one another in closer succession, than we 
have any other example of in ancient history. But 
what gives such peculiar and unprecedented evi- 
dence to the history of the gospel, is that in the 
concurrence of the multitudes who embraced it^ 
and in the existence of those numerous churches 
and societies of men who espoused the profession 
of the Christian faith, we cannot but perceive, that 
every small interval of time betwixt the written tes- 
timonies of authors is filled up by materials so strong 
and so firmly cemented, as to present us witli an un- 
broken chain of evidence, carrying as much author- 
ity along with it, as if it had been a diurnal record, 
commencing from the days of the apostles, and au- 
thenticated through its whole progress by the testi- 
mony of thousands. 

84. Every convert to the Christian faith in these 
days, gives one additional testimony to the truth of 
the gospel history. Is he a Gentile ? The sincerity 
of his testimony is approved by the persecutions, the 
sufferings, the danger, and often the certainty of 
martyrdom, which the profession of Christianity 
incurred. Is he a Jew ? The sincerity of his testi- 
mony is approved by all these evidences, and in 
addition to them by this well known fact, that the 
faith and doctrine of Christianity was in the highest 
degree repugnant to the wishes and prejudices of 
that people. It ought never to be forgotten, that in 
as far as Jews are concerned, Christianity doeis 



7? 

not owe a single proselyte to its doctrines, but to 
the power and credit of its evidences, and that Ju- 
dea was the chief theatre on which these evidence^ 
were exhibited. It cannot be too often repeated, 
that these evidences rest not upon arguments biit 
upon factSj and that the time, and the place, arid, 
the circumstance, rendered these facts accessible to 
the enquiries of all who chose to be at the trouble 
©f this examination. And there can be no doubt 
that this trouble was taken, whether we reflect oti 
the nature of the Christian faith, as being so ofien- 
sive to the pride and bigotry of the Jev/ish people, 
or whether we reflect on the consequences of em* 
bracing it, which were derisiox.', and hatred, and 
banishment, and death. We may be sure, that a 
step which involved in it such painful sacrifices, 
would not be entered into upon hghtand insufiicieiit 
grounds. In the sacrifices they made, the Jewish 
converts gave every evidence of having delivered 
an honest testimony in favour of the Christian 
miracles ; j^nd when we reflect, that many of them 
must have been eye-witnesses, and all of them had 
it in their power to verify these miracles by conver- 
sation and correspondence with bye-standers, there 
can be no doubt, that it was not merely an honest, 
but a competent testimony. There is no fact better 
established, than that many thousands among the* 
Jews believed in Jesus and his apostles ; and we have 
therefore to allege their conversion, as a strdhg 
additional confirmation to the written testimony of 
the original historians. 

85. One of the popular objections ngainst tbe 

truth of the Christian miracles, is the general infi- 

dehty of tlie Jewish people. We are convinced^ 

that at the moment of proposing this ol^iection, a» 

7* 



actual delusion exists in the mind of the infidel. In 
his conception, the Jews and the Christi. ns stand 
opposed to each other. In the belief of the latter, 
he sees nothing but a party or an interested testi- 
mony, and in the unbelief of the former, he sees a 
whole people perseverhig in their antient faith, and 
resisting the new faith, on the ground of its insuffi- 
cient evidences. He forgets all the while, that the 
testimony of a great many of these Christians, is 
in fact the testimony of Jews. He only attends to 
them in their present capacity. He contemplates 
them in the light of Christians, and annexes to them 
all that suspicion and incredulity which are gene- 
rally annexed to the testimony of an interested 
party. He is aware of what they are at present, 
CIn'istians and defenders of Christianity; but he 
has lost sight of their original situation, and is to- 
tally unmindful of this circumstance, that in their 
transition from Judaism to Christianity, they havQ 
given him the very evidence he is in quest of. Had 
another thousand of these Jews renounced the faith 
of their ancestors, and embraced the religion of 
.Jesus, they would iiave been equivalent to a thou- 
sand additional testimonies in favour of Christianity, 
and testimonies too of the strongest and most unsus- 
picious kind, tliat can well be imagined. But tins 
evidence would make no impression on the mind of 
an infidel, and the strength of it is disguised, even 
from the eyes of the Christian. These thousand, 
in the moment of tlieir conversion, lose the appel- 
lation of Jews, and merge into the name and dis- 
tinction of Christians. The Jews, tliough diminish- 
ed in nomi)er, retain the national appellation ; ^:^d 
the obstinacy with which they persevere iu the be- 
Hof of their ance:>tors, is shll looked upon as the 



79 

adverse testimony of an entire people. So long as 
one of that people continues a Jew, his testimony is 
looked upon as a serious impediment in the way 
of the Christian evidences. But the moment he 
becomes a Christian, his motives are contemplated 
with distrugt. He is one of the obnoxious and 
si^spected party. The mind carries a reference 
oni}^ to what he is, and not to what he hasibeen. It 
overlooks the change of sentiment, and forgets, that 
in the renunciation of old habits, and old prejudi- 
ces, in defiance to sufferings and disgrace, in attach- 
ment to a rehgion so repugnant to the pride and 
bigotry of tlieir nation, and above all, in their sub- 
mission to a system of doctrines which rested its 
authority on the miracles of their own time, and 
their own remembrance, every Jewish convert gives 
the most decisive testimony which man can give for 
the truth and divinity of our rehgion. 

86. But why then, says the infidel, did they not all 
believe ? Had the miracles of the gospel been true, 
we do not see how human nature could have held 
out against an evidence so striking and so extraor- 
dinar}/- ; nor can we at ail enter into the obstinacy 
of tiiat belief which is ascribed to the majority of 
the Jewish people, and which led them to shut their 
eyes against a testimony that n© man of common 
sense, v/e think, could have resisted ? 

87. Many Christian writers have attempted to 
resolve this difficulty, and to prove that the infidelity 
of the Jews, in spite of the miracles which they saw^ 
is perfectly consistent with the known principles of 
human nature. For this purpose, they have enlarge 
ed, with much force and plausibility, on the strength 
and inveteracy of the Jewish prejudices-— on tlie 
bewildering influence of rehgious bigotry upon t\m^ 



so 

understanding of men — on the woeful disappoint- 
ment wliich Christianity offered to the pride and 
interests of the nation — on the selfisliness of the 
priesthood — and on the facihty with which they 
might turn a Wind and fanatical multitude, who had 
been trained, by their earliest habits, to follow and 
to revere them. 

88. In the gospel h'story itself, we have a very 
consistent account at least of the Jewish opposition 
to the claims of our Saviour. We see the deeply 
wounded pride of a nation, that felt itself disgraced 
T)y the loss of its independence. We see the arro- 
gance of its peculiar and exclusive claims to the 
favour of the Almighty. We see the anticipation 
of a great prince, who was to deliver them from the 
power and subjection of their enemies. We sefe 
their insolent contempt for the people of other 
countries, and the foulest scorn, that they should be 
admitted to an equality with themselves in the hon- 
ours and benefits of a revelation from heaven. We 
may easily conceive, how much the doctrine of 
Christ and his apostles was calculated to gall, and 
irritate, and disappoint them; how it must have 
mortified their national vanity ; how it must have 
alarmed the jealousy of an artful and interested 
priesthood ; and how it must have scandahzed the 
great body of the people, by the liberality with which 
it addressed itself to all men, and to all nations, and 
raised to an elevation with themselves, those whom 
the firmest habits and prejudices of their conntry 
had led them to contemplate under all the disgrace 
and ignominy of outcasts. 

89. Accordingly we know, in fact, that bitterness, 
and resentment, and wounded pride, lay at the bot- 
tom of a great deal of the opposition which Chris- 



81 

tianity experienced from the Jewish people. In the 
New Testament history itself, v e see repeated ex- 
amples of their outrageous violence, and this is 
confirmed by tiie testimony of many other writers^ 
In the history of the martyrdom of Polycarp, it is 
stated, that the Gentiles and Jews inhabiting Smyr- 
na, in a furious rage, and with a loud voice, cried 
out, '^ This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the 
Christians, the destroyer of our gods, who teacheth 
all men not to sacrifice, nor to worship them !'^ 
They collected wood, and the dried branches of 
trees, for his pile ; and it is added, " the Jews also, 
according to custom, assisting with the greatest for- 
wardness." It is needless to multiply testimonies 
to a point so generally understood. That it was not 
conviction alone which lay at the bottom of their 
opposition to the Christians 5 that a great deal of 
passion entered into it; and that their numerous 
acts of hostility against the worshippers of Jesus, 
carry in them all the marks of fury and resent- 
ment. 

90. Now we know that the power of passion will 
often carry it very far over the power of conviction. 
We know that ihe strength of conviction is not in 
proportion to the quantity of evidence presentedy but 
to the quantity of evidence attended to, and perceiv-* 
ed, in consequence of that attention. We also 
know, that .attention, is, in a great measure, a vol- 
untary act> and that it is often in the power of the 
mind, both to turn away its attention from what 
wo'jld land it in ?3ny painful or humihating conclu- 
sion, and to deliver itself up exclusively to those 
arguments which flatter its taste and its prejudice$» 
All tiiis lies within the range of famihar and every 
day experience. We ail know how mucli it ensures 



92 

tiie success of an argument, when it gets Sifavoura'^ 
hie hearing* In by far the greater number of instan- 
ces, the parties in a litigation are not merely each 
attached to their own side of the question ; but each 
confident and belieung that theirs is the side on 
which the justice lies* In these contests of opinion, 
whicli take place every day betwixt man and man, 
and particularly if passion and interest have any 
share in the controversy, it is evident to the slightest 
observation, that though it might have been selfish- 
ness, in the first instance, which gave a peculiar di- 
rection to the understanding, yet each of the parties 
often comes, at last, to entertain a sincere conviction 
in the truth of his own argument. It is not that 
truth is not one and immutable. The whole diflTe- 
I'ence lies m the o;?s.:rveis, each of them viewing 
the object through the medium of his own prejudi- 
ces, or cherishing those peculiar habits of attention 
and understanding to which taste or inclination had 
disposed hira. 

91. In addition to all this, we know, that though 
the evidence for a particular truth be so glaring, 
that it forces itsell upon the uiiderstanding, and all 
the sophistry of passion and interest cannot with- 
stand it, yet, if this truth be of a very painful and 
humiliating kind, the obstinacy of man will often 
dispose him to resist its influence, and, in the bitter- 
ness of his malignant feelings, to carry a hostility 
against it, and that too in proportion to the weight 
of the argument vfhich may be brought forward in 
its favour. 

92. Now, if we take into account the inveteracy 
cjf the Jewish prejudices, and reflect how unpalata- 
ble and how mortifying to their pride must have 
been the doctrine of a crucified Saviour, we believe 



8S 

tliat their conduct, in reference to Christianity and 
its miraculous evidences, presents us with notliing 
anomalous or inexphcable, and that it will appear a 
possible and a likely thing to every understanding, 
that has been cultivated in the experience of human 
affaiis, in the nature of man, and the science of its 
character and phenomena. 

93. There is a difficulty, however, in the way of 
this investigation. From the nature of the case, it 
bears no resemblance to any thiiig else, that has 
either been recorded in history, or has come within 
the range of our own personal observation. There is 
no other example of a people called upon to re- 
nounce the darlmg faith and principles of their 
country, and that upon tlje authority of miracles 
exhibited before them. All the experience we have 
about the operation of prejudice, and the perver- 
sion of the human temper and understanding, can- 
not afford a complete solution of the question. In 
many respects, it is a case sui generis, and the only 
creditable information which we can obtain, to en- 
lighten us in this enquiry, is through the medium of 
that very testimony upon which the difficulty in 
question has thrown the suspicion that we want to 
get rid of. 

94. Let us give all the weight to this argument of 
which it is susceptible, and liie following is the pre- 
cise degree in which it affects the merits of the con- 
troversy. When the religion of Jesus was promul- 
gated in Judea, its first teachers appealed to mira- 
cles^ wrought by themselves in the face of day, as 
the evidence of their being commissioned by God. 
Many adopted the new religion upon this appeal, 
and many rejected it. An argument in favour of 
Christianity is derived from the conduct of the first. 



S4 

An objection against Christianity is derived froim 
the conduct of the second. Now^ allowing that we 
are not in possession of experience enough for esti- 
mating, hi absolute term^s, the strength of the objec- 
tion, we propose the following as a solid and unex- 
ceptionable principle, upon which to estimate a 
comparison betwixt the strength of the objection 
and the strength of the argument. We are sure 
that the first would not have embraced Christianity;, 
had its miracles been false ; but we are not sure 
beforehand, whether the second would have reject- 
ed this religion, on the supposition of the miracles 
being true. If experience does not enhghten us as 
to how far the exhibition of a real mirade would be 
effectual, m inducing men to renounce their old and 
favourite opinions, we can infer nothing decisive 
from the conduct of those who still kept by the 
Jewish rehgion. This conduct was a matter of un- 
certainty, and any argument which mny be extract- 
ed from it cannot be depended upon. But the case 
is widely different with that party of their nation, 
who were converted from Judaism to Christianity. 
We know that the alleged miracles of Christianity 
were perfectly open to examination. We are sure, 
from our experience of human nature, that in a 
question so interesting, this examination would be 
given. We know, from the very nature of the mi- 
raculous facts, so remote like every thing from what 
would be attempted by jugglery, or pretended to by 
enthusiasm, that if this examination were given, it 
would fix the truth or falsehood of the miracles. 
The truth of these miracles, then, for any thing we 
•know, may be consistent with the conduct of the 
Jewish party; but the falsehood of tliese miraclesj 
from all that we do know of human nature, is not 



S9 

consistent with the conduct of the Christian party^ 
Granting that we are not sure whether a miracle 
would force the Jewish nation to renounce their 
opinions, all that we can say of the conduct of the 
Jewish party is, that we are not able to explain it* 
But there is one thing that we are sure of. We are 
sure, that if the pretensions of Christianity be false^ 
it never could have forced any part of the Jewish 
nation to renounce their opinions, with its alleged 
miracles so open to detection, and its doctrines so 
offensive to every individual. The conduct of the 
Christian party, then, is not only what we are able 
to explain, but we can say with certainty, that it 
admits of no other explanation, than the truth of 
that hypothesis which we contend for. We may 
not know in how far an attachment to existing 
©pinions will prevail over an argument which is felt 
to be true ; but we are sure, that this attachment 
will never give way to an argument which is per- 
ceived to be false ; and particularly when danger^ 
and hatred, and persecution, are the consequences 
of embracing it. The argument for Christianity, 
from the conduct of the first proselytes, rests upon 
the firm ground of experience. The objection 
against it, from the conduct of the unbelieving 
Jews, has no experience whatever to rest upon. 

95. The conduct of the Jews may be considered 
as a solitary fact in the history of the w^orld, not 
from its being an exception to the general princi- 
ples of human nature, but from its being an exhibi- 
tion of human nature in singular circumstances. 
We have no experience to guide us in our opinion 
as to the probability of this conduct; and nothing, 
therefore, that can impeach a testimony, which all 
experience in human affairs leads us to repose in a:<^ 
8 



wnquestiotiable. But after this testimony is admitted, 
we may submit to be enlightened by it; and in the 
histoiy which it gives us of the unbelieving Jews, it 
furnishes a curious fact as to the power of prejudice 
upon the human mind, and a valuable accession to 
wlmt we before knew of the principles of our nature. 
It lays before us an exhibition of the human mind 
in a situation altogether unexampled, and furnishea 
us with the result of a singular experiment, if we 
may so call it, in the history of the species. We 
offer it as an interesting fact to the moral and intel- 
lectual philosopher, that a previous attachment may 
sway the m.ind even against the impression of a 
miracle ; and those who believe not in the historical 
evidenccA^ hich established the authority of Christ 
and of the apostles, would not believe, even though- 
one rose froiii the dead. 

90. We are inclined to think, that the argument 
has come down to us in the best possible form, and 
that it would have been enfeebled by that very cir* 
cumstance, wliieh the iniidei demands as essential 
to its validity. Suppose for a moment, that we could 
give him what he wants, that all the priests and 
people of Judea were so borne down by the resist- 
less evidence of miracles, as by one universal con- 
sent to become the disciples of the new rehgion. 
What interpretation might have been given to this 
unanimous movement in favour of Christianity? A 
very unfavourable one, we apprehend to the authen- 
ticity of its evidences. Will the infidel say, that 
he has a higher respect for the credibility of those 
miracles which ushered in the dispensation of Moses, 
because they were exhibited in the face of a whole 
people, and gained their unexcepted submission ta 
the law$ and the ritual of Judaism ? This new revo- 



sr 

Iiitioit would have received the same explanation* 
We would have heard of its being sanctioned by 
their prophecies, of its being agreeable to their pre- 
judices, of its being supported by the countenance 
and encouragement of their priesthood, and that the 
jugglery of its miracles imposed upon all, because 
all were willing to be deceived by them. The ac- 
tual form in which the history has come down, pre- 
sents us with an argument free of all these excep- 
tions. We, in the first instance, behold a number of 
proselytes, whose testimony to the facts of Chris- 
tianity is approved of by what they lost and suffered 
in the maintenance of their faith ; and we, in the 
second instance, behold a number of enemies, eager, 
vigilant, and exasperated at the progress of the new 
religion, who have not questioned the authenticity 
of our histories, and whose silence, as to the public 
and widely talked of miracles of Christ and his 
apostles, we have a right to interpret into the most 
triumphant of all testimonies. 

97. The same process of reasoning is applicable 
to the cases of the Gentiles. Many adopted the 
new religion, and many rejected it. We may not 
be sure, if we can give an adequate explanation of 
the conduct of the latter, on the supposition that the 
evidences are true ; but we are perfectly sure, that 
we can give no adequate explanation of the conduct 
of the former, on the supposition that the evidences 
are false. For any thing we know, it is possible 
that the one party may have adhered to their for- 
mer prejudices, in opposition to all the force and 
urgency of argument, which even an authentic 
jiiiracie carries along with it. But we know that it 
is not possible that the other party should renounce 
these prejudices, and that too in the face of danger 
and persecution, unless the miracles had been au« 



8S 

tlientic. So great is the diflerence betwixt Hw 
strength of the argument and the strength of the 
objeciionj that we count it fortunate for the merits 
of the cause, that the conversions to Christianit}^ 
were partial. We, in this way, secure ail the sup- 
port wiiich is derived from the inexplicable fact of 
the sdence of its enemies, inexplicable on every 
suppositioji, but the undeniable evidence and cer- 
tainty of the miracles. Had the Roman empire 
made a unarrimous movement to the new religion, 
and all the authorities of the state lent their con- 
currence to it, there would have been a suspicion 
annexed to the whole history cf the gospel, which 
cannot at present -appjy to it ; and from the colli- 
sion of the opposite parties, the truth has come down 
to us in a far more unquestionable form than if no 
such colhsion nad been excited. 

98. The silerce of Heathen and Jewish writers 
of that period, about the miracles of Christianity, 
has been much insisted upon by the enemies of our 
religion; arid has even excited something like a 
painful S'jspicionj in the breasts of those who are 
attached to its cause. Certain it is, that no ancient 
facts have come down to us, supported by a greater 
quantity of h-storical evidences, and better accom- 
panied V jtli all the circumstances which can coisfer 
crr-dibiluy -v^ tliat evidence. When we demand the 
testitjr>r / o Taciins to the Christian miracles, we 
lore ei <i'^ t ae while that we can allege a multitude of 
mac}, ri vve dec:S-ve testimonies ; no less than eight 
co<f y authors, and a train of succeeding 

wr: o follow one another with a closeness 

and It}', of which there is no example in any 

otlr.-r : |*aj tmeiit of ancient history. We forget 
tl^t the authenticity of these different writer,-?, and 



89 

tiieir pretensions to credit, are founded on conside- 
rations, perfectly the same in' kind, though much 
stronger in degree, than what have been employed 
to establish the testimony of the most esteemed his- 
torians of former ages. For the history of the gos- 
pel, we behold a series of testimonies, more continu- 
ous, and more firmly sustained, than there is any 
other example of in the whole compass of erudition. 
And to refuse this evidence, is a proof, that in this 
investigation, there is an aptitude in the human 
mind to abandon all ordinary principles, and to be 
carried away by the delusions which we have alrea- 
dy insisted on. 

99. But let us try the effect of that testimony 
which our antagonists demand. Tacitus has actu- 
ally attested the existence of Jesus Christ; the 
reality of such a personage ; his public execution 
under the administration of Pontius Pilate ; the 
temporary check which this gave to the progress of 
his religion ; its revival a short time after his death ^ 
its progress over the land of Judea, and to Rome 
itself, the metropolis of the empire ;~all this ^ve 
have in a Roman historian ; and, in opposition to 
all estabhshed reasoning upon these subjects, it is 
by some more firmly confided in upon his testimony, 
than upon the numerous and concurring testimonies 
of nearer and cotemporary writers. But be this as 
it may, let us suppose that Tacitus had thrown one 
particular more into his testimony, and that his 
sentence had run thus : " They had their denomi- 
nation from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, 
was put to death as a criminal by the procurator 
Pontius Pilate, and who rose from the dead on tJie 
third day after his exeadiony and ascended into hear 
tSfiJ' Does it not strike every bod3^,that hov/ever 
8* 



m 

true the last piece of information may be, and liovv- 
ever well established by its proper historians, this 
is not the place where we can expect to find it ? if 
Tacitus did not believe the resurrection of our Sav- 
iour, (vv hich is probably the case, as he never, in all 
likehhood, pauJ any atiention to the evidence of a 
faith which he wf^s led to regard, from the outset, as 
a pernicious superstition, and a mere modiiicatiorj 
of Judaism,) it is not to be supposed that such an 
assertion co^jld ever have been made by him. If 
Tacitus did believe the resurrection of our Saviour^ 
he gives us au example of v»'hat appears not to have 
been uncommon in these fjges — he gives us an ex-* 
ample of a man adhering to that system which in» 
terest and education recommended, in opposition to 
the evidence of a miracle which he admitted to be 
true. Sti]], even on this supposition, it is the most 
unlikely thing in the world, that he would have 
adip.itted the fact of our Saviour's resurrection into 
his history. It is most improbable, that a testimony 
of this kind would have been given, even though the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ be admitted ; and, there- 
fore, the want of this testimony carries in it no ar- 
gument that the resurrection is a falsehood. , If, 
hovvever, in opposition to all probability, this testi- 
mony had been given, it would have been appealed 
to as a most striking confirm.ation of the main fact 
of the evangelical history. It would have figured 
away in all our elementary treatises, and been re- 
ferred to as a master argument in every exposition 
of the evidences of Christianity. Infidels w^ould 
have been challenged to believe in it on the strength 
of their own favourite evidence, the evidence of a 
classical historian ; and must have been at a loss 
how to dispose of this fact, when they saw an unbi* 



91 

assed lieatbcii giving his round and unqiialiiied ies« 
tiniony in its favoar. 

100. Let us now cany the supposition a step far- 
ther. Let us conceive that Tacitus not only behev- 
cd the fact, and gave his testimony to it, but that he 
believed it so far as to become a Christian. Is his 
testimony to be refused becanse he gives this evi- 
dence of its slncerit}^ ? Tacitus asserting the fact, 
and remaining a heathen, is not so strong an argu- 
ment for the truth of our Saviour's resurrection, as 
Tacitus asserting the fact, and becoming a Chris- 
tian in consequence of it. Yet the moment that 
this transition is made — ^a transition by which, in 
point of fact, it becomes stronger — in point of im- 
pression it becomes less ; and, by a delusion, com- 
mon to the infidel and the believer, tlie argument 
is held to be weakened by the very circumstance 
v/hich imparts greater force to it. The elegant 
and accomplished scholar becoms a believer. Tlie 
truth, the novelty, the importance of this new sub- 
ject, withdraws him from every other pursuit. He 
shares in the common enthusiasm of the cause, and 
gives all his talents and eloquence to the support 
of it. Instead of the Roman historian, Tacitus 
comes down to posterity in the shape of a Christian 
father, and the hig-h authority of his name is lost in 
a crowd of similar testimonies. 

101- A direct testimony to the miracles of the 
New Testament from the mouth of a heathen, is 
not to be expected. We cannot satisfy this de- 
mand of the infidel 5 but we can give him a host of 
much stronger testimonies than he is in quest of — 
the testimonies of those men who were heathens, 
5^nd v/lio em])ra€ed a hazardous and a disgraceful 
^•mfessioii; midei a deep conviction of those faic>ts 



9S 

to which they gave their testimony. ^^' O, but you 
now land us m the testimony of Christians P' This 
is veiy true ; but it ^"s the very fact of their being 
Christians in which the strength of the argument 
lies : and in each of the numerous fathers of the 
Christian church, we see a stronger testimony than 
the required testimony of the heathen Tacitus. 
We see men who, if they had not been Christians, 
would have risen to as high an eminence as Taci- 
tus in the literature of the times ; and whose direct 
testimonies to the gospel history would, in that 
case, have been most impressive, even to the mind 
of an infidel. And are these testimonies to be less 
impressive, because they were preceded by convic- 
tion, and sealed by martyrdom ? 

102. Yet though, from the nature of the case, no 
direct testimony to the Christian miracles from a 
heathen can be looked for, there are heathen testi- 
monies which form an important accession to the 
Christian argument. Such are the testimonies to 
the state of Judea, the testimonies to those nume- 
rous particulars in government and customs which 
are so often alluded to in the New Testament, and 
give it the air of an authentic history. And, above 
ail, the testim.onies to the sufferings of the primi- 
tive Christians, from which we learn, through a 
channel clear of every suspicion, that Christianity^ 
arehgion of facts, was the object of persecution, at 
a time when eye-witnesses taught, and eye-witnesses 
must have bled for it. 

103. The silence of Jewish and heathen writers, 
when the true interpretation is given to it, is all on 
the side of the Christian argument. Even though 
the miracles of the gospel had been believed to be 
true;, it is most unlikely that the enemies of the 



93 

Christian religion would have given their testimony 
to them ; and the abscence of this testimony is no 
impeachment therefore upon the reahty of these 
miracles. But if the miracles of the gospel had 
been beheved to be false, it is most hkely that this 
falsehood would have been asserted by the Jews 
and Heathens of that period ; and the circumstance 
of no such assertion having been given is a strong 
argument for the reality of these miracles. Their 
silence in not asserting the miracles is perfectly 
consistent with their truth 5 but their silence in not 
denying them is not at all consistent with their 
falsehood. The entire silence of Josephus upon 
the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the his- 
tory of that period in which. Christ and his apostles 
lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance. 
The sudden progress of Christianity at that time, 
and the fame of its miracles, (if not the miracles 
themselves,) form an important part of the Jewish 
history. How came Josephus to abstain from ev- 
ery particular respecting it ? Will you reverse every 
prmciple of criticism, and make the silence of Jo- 
sephus carry it over the positive testimony of the 
many historical documents which have come down 
to us ? If you refuse every Christian testimony up- 
on the subject, you will not refuse the testimony of 
Tacitus, who asserts, that this religion spread over 
Judea, and reached the city of Rome, and was 
looked upon as an evil of such importance, that it 
became the object of an authorised persecution by 
the Roman government ; and all tliis several yearfe 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, and before Jo- 
sephus composed ins Iiistory. Whatever opinion 
may be formed as to the tnith of ChristiauitV; cer 



94 

tain it is, that its progress constituted an object of 
sufficient magnitude to compel the attention of any 
historian who undertook the affairs of that period. 
How then shall we account for the scrupulous and 
determined exclusion of it from the history of Jo« 
sephus? Had its miracles been false, this Jewish 
historian would gladly have exposed them. But 
its miracles were true, and silence was the only 
refuge of an antagonist, and his wisest policy. 

104. But though we gather no direct testimony 
from Josephus, yet his history furnishes us with ma- 
ny satisfying additions to the Christian argument. 
In the details of policy and manners, he coincides 
in the main with the writers of the New Testa- 
ment; and these coincidences are so numerous, 
and have so undesigned an appearance, as to im- 
press on every prison, who is at the trouble of 
making the comparison, the truth of the evangel- 
ical story. 

105. If we are to look for direct testimonies to 
the miracles of the New Testament, we must look 
to that quarter where alone it would be reasonable 
to expect them, to the writings of the Christian fa- 
thers, men who were not Jews or Heathens at the 
moinent of recording their testimony ; but who had 
been Jews or Heathens, and who, in their transition 
to the ultimate state of Christians, give a stronger 
evidence of integrity than if they had believed 
these miracles, and persisted in a cowardly adher- 
ence to the safest profession. 

106. We do not undertake to satisfy every de- 
mand of the infidel. We think we do enough if 
we prove that the thing demanded is most unlikely, 
even though the miracles should be true ; and there- 
fore that the want of it carries no argument against 



95 

the truth of the miracles. But we do still mor^ 
than this, if we prove that the testimonies which we 
actually possesss are much stronger than the testi- 
monies he is in quest of. And who can doubt this, 
when he reflects that the true way of putting the 
case betwixt the testimony of the Christian father, 
which we do have, and the testimony of Tacitus, 
which we do not have, is, that the latter would be 
an assertion not followed up by that conduct which 
would have been the best evidence of its sincerity. 
Whereas, the former is an assertion substantiated 
by the whole life, and by the decisive fact of the 
old profession having been renounced, and the new 
profession entered into, — a change where disgrace, 
and danger, and martyrdom, were the conse- 
quences. 

107. Let us, therefore, enter into an examination 
of these testimonies. 

108. This subject has been in part anticipated, 
when we treated of the authenticity of the books of 
the New Testament. We have quotations and re- 
ferences to these books from five apostolic fathers, 
the companions of the original writers. We have 
their testimonies sustained and extended by their 
immediate successors; and as we pursue this 
crowded series of testimonies downwards, they be- 
come so numerous, and so explicit, as to leave no 
doubt on the mind of the inquirers, that the different 
books of the New Testament are the pubhcation^ 
of the authors whose names they bear ; and were 
received by the Christian world as books of au- 
thority from the first period of their appearance. 

109. Now every sentence in a Christian father, 
expressive of respect for a book in the New Testa* 
ment, is also expressive of his faith in its contents. 



9§ 

It is equivalent to bis testimony for tlie miraeles 
recorded in it. In the language of the law, it is an 
act by which he homologates the record, and su- 
perinduces his own testimony to that of the original 
writers. It woidd be vain to attempt speaking of 
all these testimonies. It cost the meritorious Lard- 
iier many years to collect them. They are exhibit- 
ed in his crcMibilit}^ of the New Testament; and 
in the multitude <y£ them, we see a power and a va- 
riety of evidence for the Christian miracles, which 
is quite unequalled in the whole compass of ancient 
history. 

110. But, in addition to these testimonies in the 
gross, for the truth of the evangelical history, haver 
we no distinct testimonies to the individual factS) 
which compose it ? Vie liave no doubt of the fact,,, 
that Barnabas was acquainted with the gospel by 
Matthew, and that he subscribed to all the informa- 
tion contained in that liistor3^ This is a most val- 
uable testimony from a cotemporary writer ; and a 
testimony which embraces all the miracles narrat- 
ed by the evangehst. But, in addition to tliis, we 
should like if Barnabas, upon his own personal con- 
viction, could assert the reality of any-of these mir- 
acles. It would be multiplying the original testi- 
monies ; for he was a companion and fellow-labour- 
er of the apostles. We should have been delighted, 
ify m the course of our researches into the litera*- 
ture of past timeS; we had met with an authentic 
tccord- written by one of the five hundred, that are 
said to have seen our Saviour after his resurrection, 
niid adding his own narrative of this event to the 
viarratives mat have already come down to us. 
Now, is an> ib^ri^ of this kind to be met with in ec- 
desiastical nnuQuUv ? Hew much, of this kind ct* 



97 

cvidetice are we in actual possession of ? and if we 
have not enough to satisfy our keen appetites for 
evidence on a question of such magnitude, how is 
the want of it to be accounted for ? 

111. Let it be observed, then, that of ihe twenty- 
seven books which make up the New Testament, 
five are narrative or historical, viz. the four Gos- 
pels, and the Acts of the Apostles, which relate to 
the life and miracles of our Saviour, and the pro- 
gress of his religion through the world, for a good 
many years after his ascension into heaven. All 
the rest, with the exception of the gospel by St, 
John, are doctrinal or admonitory ; and their main 
object is to explain the principles of the new reli- 
gion, or to impress its duties upon the numerous 
proselytes w ho had even at that early period been 
gained over to the profession of Christianity. 

112. Besides what we have in the New Testa- 
ment, no other professed narrative of the miracle,^ 
of Christianity has come down to us, bearing the 
marks of authentic composition by any apostle^ 
or any cotemporary of the apostles. Now, to those 
who regret this circumstance, we beg leave to sub- 
mit the following observations. Suppose that one 
other narrative of the life and miracles of our Sav- 
iour had been composed, and, to give all the value 
to this additional testimony of which it is suscepti- 
ble, let us suppose it to be the work of an apostle. 
By this last circumstance, we secure to its uttermost 
extent the advantage of an original testim.ony, the 
testimony of another eye-witness, and constant com- 
panion of our Saviour. Now^, we ask, what vfould 
have been the fate of this performance ? It would 
have been incorporated into the New Testamenr 
along with the other gospels. It mav have been the 

9 



98 

gogpel according to Philip. It may have been the 
gospel according to Bartholomew. At all events, 
the whole amount of the advantage would have 
been the substitution of five gospels instead of four, 
and th.s addition, the want of which is so much 
complained of, would scarcely have been felt by 
the Christians, or acknowledged by the infidel to 
strengthen the evidence which we are already in 
possession of. 

113. But to vary the supposition, let us suppose 
that the narrative wanted, instead of being the work 
of an apostle, had been the work of some other co- 
temporary, who writes upon his own original know- 
ledge of the subject, but was not so closely associat- 
ed with Christ, or his immediate disciples, as to 
have his history admitted in the canonical scrip- 
tures. Had this history been preserved, it would 
have been transmitted to us in a separate state, it 
would have stood out from among that collection 
of writings, which passes under the general name 
of the New Testament, and the additional evidence 
thus afforded, would have come down in the form 
most satisfactory to those with w^hom v*^e are main- 
taining our present argument. Yet though, in point 
of form, the testimony might be more satisfactory ^ 
in point of fact, it would be less so. It is the testi- 
mony of a less competent witness, — a witness who 
in the judgment of his cotemporaries, wanted those 
accompUshments which entitled him to a place in 
the New Testament. There must be some delu- 
sion operating upon the understanding, if we think 
that a circumstance, which renders an historian 
less accredited in the eyes of his own age, should 
render him more accredited in the eyes of poste- 
rity. Had Mark been kept out of the New Tes- 



99 

tament-, he would have come down to us in that 
form, which would have made his testimony more 
impressive to a superficial enquirer ; jet tliere would 
be no good reason for keeping him out, but pre- 
cisely tliat reason which sliould render his testi- 
mony less impressive. We do not complain of 
this anxiety for more evidence, and as much of 
it as possible ; but it is right to be told, that the 
evidence we have is of far more value than the 
evidence demanded, and that, in the concurrence 
of four canonical narratives, we see a far more 
effectual argument for the miracles of the New 
Testament, than in any number of those separate 
and extraneous narratives, the want of which is so 
much felt, and so much complained of. 

114. That the New Testament is not one, but a 
collection of many testimonies, is what has been 
often said, and often acquiesced in. Yet even af» 
ter the argument is formally acceded to, its im- 
pression is unfelt ; and on this subject there is a 
great and an obstinate delusion, which not only 
confirms the infidel in his disregard to Christianity^ 
but even veils the strength of the evidence from 
its warmest admirers. 

115. There is a difference betwixt a mere narra* 
tive and a work of speculation or morality. The 
latter subjects embrace a wider range, admit a 
greater variety of illustration, and are quite endless 
in their application to the new cases that occur in 
the ever-changing history of human affairs. The 
subject of a narrative, again, admits of being ex*« 
hausted. It is limited by the number of actual 
events. True, you may expatiate upon the charac- 
ter or importance of these events, but, in so doing, 
you drop the office of the pure historian, for that of 



100 

the politician, or the moralist, or the divine. The 
evangelists give us a ver^y chaste and perfect exam- 
pie of the pure narrative. They never appear in 
their own persoas, or arrest the progress of the 
history for a siagie moment, by interposnig their 
own wisdom, or their own piety. A gospel is a 
bare relation of what has been said or done ; and 
it is evi.fent that, after a few good compositions of 
this kind, any future attempts would be supurfluous 
and uncalled for. 

116. But, in point of fact, these attempts were 
made. It is to be supposed, thai, after the singu- 
lar events of our Saviour's insto?:y, the curiosity of 
the public would be awakened, and there would be 
a demand for written accounts of such wonderful 
transactions. These written accounts were accor- 
dingly brought forward. Even in the inteival of 
time betvv^ xt the ascension of our Saviour, and the 
pubhcation of the earliest gospel, such written his- 
tories seem to have been frequent. " Many,^' says 
St. Luke, (and in this he is supported by the testi- 
mony of subsequent writers,) ^^ have taken in hand 
to set forth in order a declaration of these things." 
Now what has been the fate of all these performan- 
ces ? Such as might have been anticipated. They 
fell into disuse and oblivion. There is no evil de- 
sign ascribed to the authors of them. They may 
have been written with perfect integrity, and been 
usef il for a short time, and within a limited circle ; 
h'dU as was natural, they all gave way to the su- 
perior a-ithority, and more complete niformation of 
oar present narratives. The demand of the Chris- 
tian world was withdrawn from the less esteemed 
to the more esteemed histories of our Saviour. 
The former ceased to be read; gpid copies of them 



101 

wmiM be no longer transcribed or m\iltipHed. We 
cannot finJ the testimony we are in quest of, not 
because it was never given, but because the early 
Christians, who were the most competent judges of 
that testimony, did not think it worthy of bemg 
transmitted to us. 

117. Bat, though the number of narratives be 
necessarily limited by the nature of the subject, 
there is no s ich limitation upon works of a moral, 
didactic, or explanatojy kind. JVJany such pieces 
have come down to us, both from the apostles 
themselves, and from the eailier fathers of the 
church. Now, though the object of these compo- 
sitions is not to dehver any narrative of the Chris- 
tian mnacles, they may perhaps give us some oc- 
casional intimation of them, they ma}^ proceed up- 
on their reality. We may gather either from 
incidental passageSj or from the general scope of 
the performance, that the miracles of Christ and 
his apostles were recognised, and the divinity of 
our religion acknowledged, as founded upon these 
miracles- 

118. The first piece of the kind which we meet 
with, besides the writings of the New Testament, 
is an epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and^ at all 
events, the production of a man who hved in the 
days of the apostles. It consists of an exhortation 
to constancy in the Christian profession^ a dissua* 
sive from Judaism, and other moral instructions* 
We shall only give a quotation of a single clause 
from this work. '^ And he (i. e. our Saviour) mak- 
ing great signs and prodigies to the people of the 
Jews, they neither believed nor loved him.^' 

IIP. The next piece in the succession of Chris- 
tian writers, is the undoubted epistle of Clement, 
9^ 



103 

the bishop of Rome, to the church of Corinth^ and 
who, by the concurrent voice of all antiquity, is the 
same Clement who is mentioned in the epistle to 
the Phihppians, as the feliow-labourer of Paul. It 
is written in the name of the church of Rome, and 
the object of it is to compose certain dissensions 
which had arisen in the church of Corinth. It was 
out of his way to enter into any thing like a formal 
narrative of the miraculous facts which are to be 
found in the evangehcal history. The subject of 
his epistle did not lead him to this; and besides, the 
number and authority of the narratives already pub- 
lished, rendered an attempt of this kind altogether 
super^uous. Still, however, though a miracle may 
not be formally announced, it may be brought in 
incidentally, or it may be proceeded upon, or assum- 
ed as the basis of an argument. We give one or 
two examples of this. In one part of his epistle, he 
illustrates the doctrine of our resurrection from the 
dead, by the change and progression of natural ap- 
pearances, and he ushers in this illustration with 
the following sentence : " Let us consider, my be- 
loved, how the Lord shows us our future resurrec- 
tion perpetually, of which he made the Lord Jesus 
Christ the first fruits, by raising him from the dead." 
This incidental way of bringing in the fact of our 
Lord^s resurrection appears to us the strongest pos- 
sible form in which the testimony of Clemeiet could 
liave come down to us. It is brought forward 
in the most confident and unembarrassed manner. 
He does not stop to confirm this fact by any strong 
asseveration, nor does he cany, in his manner of 
announcing it, the most remote suspicion of its be- 
ing resisted by the incredulity of those to whom 
he is addressing himself. It v/ears the air of an 
acknowledged truth, a thing nnderstood and acqai- 



103 

€sccd in by all the parties in this correspondeuco. 
The direct narrative of the evangehsts gives us 
their original testimony to the miracles of the gos- 
pel. The artless and indirect allusions of the 
apostlic fathers, give us not merely their faith in 
this testimony, )3ut the faith of the whole societies 
to which they write. They let us see, not merely 
that such a testimony was given, but that such a 
testimony was generally believed, and that too at a 
time when the facts in question lay within the 
memory of hving v^^itnesses. 

120. In another part, speaking of the apostles, 
Clement says, that " receiving the commandments, 
and being filled with full certainty by the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ, and confiif med by the word of 
God, with the assurance of the Holy Spirit, they 
w^ent out announcing the advent of the kingdom of 
God.^^^ 

121. Tt was no object, in those days, for a Chris* 
tian wi'iter to come over the miracles of the New 
Testament v/ith the view of lending his formal and 
exphcit testimony to them. This testimony had 
already been completed to the satisfaction of the 
whole Christian world. If much additional testi- 
mony has not been given, it is because it was r0. 
called for. But we ought to see that every Chris- 
tian writer, in the ife.ct,pf his being a Christian, in 
his expressed reverence for the books of the New 
Testament, and in his numerous allusions to the 
leading points of th® gospel history, has given as 
satisfying evidence to the truth of the ChristiaE 
miracles as if he had left behind him a copious and 
distinct narrative. 

122. Of all thciniracles of the gospel, it was to 
be supposed, that the resurrection of our Saviour 



104 

would be oftenest appealed to ^ not as an evidence 
of jiis being ^a teacher,— for that was a point so 
settled in the mind of every Christian, that a writ- 
ten exposition of the argument was no longer ne- 
cessary, — but as a motive to constancy in the 
Christian profession, and as the great pillar of hope 
in our own immortality. We accordingly meet 
with the most free and confident allusions to this 
fact in the early fathers. We meet with five inti- 
mations of this fact in the undoubted epistle of Po- 
iycarp to the Philippians ; a father who had been 
c^ducated by the apostles, and conversed with ma« 
iiy who had seen Christ. 

123. It is quite unnecessary to exhibit passa- 
ges from tlie epistles of Ignatius to the same effect, • 
or to pursue the examination downwards through 
the series of written testimomes. It is enough to 
announce it as a general fact, that, in the very first 
age of the Christian church, the teachers of this 
religion proceeded as confidently upon the reah ty 
of Christ's miracles and resurrection in tlieir ad- 
dresses to tlie people, as the teachers of the pre- 
sent day : Or, in other words, that they were as 
little afraid of being resisted by the incredulity of 
tin people, at a time when the evidence of the facts 
was accessible to all, and habit and prejudice were 
against them, ^s we are of beinji^esisted by the in- 

c redulity of an unlettered multitude, who listen to 
us with all the veneration of a lierechtary faith. 

124, There are five apostolic fathers, and a se- 
ries of Christian writers who follow after them in 
rnpid succession.. To give an idea to those who 
are not conversant in the study of ecclesiastical 
antiquities, how well sii^tainrd ihe cliain of testis 
irt'^'^v is f'oir :"e :'' ^"^-t ri'-e of Christiarut-^'. vrr n\a\l 



Its 

give a passage from a letter of Irenscug, preserved 
by Eusebius. We have no less than nme compo- 
siiions froai different authors, which iill up the in- 
terval betwixt hirn and Polycarp ; and yet this is 
the way in which he speaks, in his old age, of the 
venerable Polycarp, in a letter to Florinus. '' I 
saw you, when I was very young, in the Lower 
Asia with Polycarp. For I better remember the 
affairs of that time than those which have lately 
happened ; the things which we learn in our child* 
hood growing up in the soul, and uniting themselves 
to it. Insomuch, that I can tell the place in which 
the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going 
out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and 
the form <:ii his person, and his discourses to the 
people ; and how he related his conversation with 
John and others who had seen the Lord ; and how 
he related their sayings, and what he had heard 
from them concerning the Lord, both concerning 
hiS miracles and his doctrines, as he had received 
them from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life : 
all which Polycarp related agreeably to the Scrip- 
tures. These things I then, through the mercy of 
God toward me, diligently heard and attended to, 
recording them not on paper, but upon my heart.^* 
125. Now is the time to exhibit to full advan- 
tage the alignment which the different epistles of the 
New Testament afford. They are, in fact, so ma- 
ny distinct and additional testimonies. If the tes- ' 
timonies drawn from the writings of the Christian 
fathers are calculated to make any impression, then 
the testimonies of these epistles, where there is no 
deUision, and no prejudice in the mind of the in* 
quirer, must make a great impression. They are 
Hiore ancient, ^nd were held to be of greater au- 



1G6 

thority by competent judges. They were Iield 
sufficient by the men of these days, who were near- 
er to the sources of evidence ; and they ought, 
therefore, to be held sufficient by us. The early 
persecuted Christians had too great an interest 
in the grounds of their faitli, to make a light 
and superficial examination. We may safely com- 
mit the decision to them ; and the decision they 
liave made is, that the authors of the different epis* 
ties in the New Testament were worthier of their 
confidence, as witnesses of the truth, than the au- 
thors of those compositions whicli were left out of 
the collection, and maintain, in our eye, the form 
of a separate testimony. By what unaccountable 
tendency is it, that we feel disposed to reverse this 
decision, and to repose more faith in the testimony 
of subsequent and less esteemed writers ? Is there 
any thing in the confidence given to Peter and 
Paul by their cotemporaries, which renders them 
unworthy of ours? or, is the testimony of their wri- 
tings less valuable and less impressive, because the 
Christians of old have received them as the best 
vouchers of their faith ? 

126. It gives us a far more satisfy in2f impression 
than ever of the truth of our religion, when, in 
addition to several distinct and independent narra- 
tives of its history, we meet with a number of con- 
temporaneous productions addressed to different 
societies, and all proceeding upon the truth of that 
history, as an agreed and unquestionable point 
amongst the different parties in the correspondence. 
Had that history been a fabrication, in what man- 
ner, we ask, would it have been followed up by the 
subsequent compositions of those numerous agents 
in the work of deception ? How comes it, that they 



107 

have betrayed no symptom of that insecurity^ 
v/hich it would have been so natural to feel in their 
circumstances ? Through the whole of these epis- 
tles, we see nothing like the awkward or embarras- 
sed air of an UTipostor. We see no anxiety, either 
to mend or to confirm the histdry that had aheady 
been given. We see no contest which they miglit 
have been called npon to maintain with the incre- 
dulity of their converts, as to the miracles of the 
gospel. We see the most intrepid remonstrance 
against errors of conduct, or discipline, or doctrine. 
This savours strongly of upright and independent 
teachers; but is it not a most striking circumstance, 
that, amongst the severe reckonings which St. Paul 
had with some of his churches, he was never once 
called upon to school their doubts, or their suspi- 
cions, as to the reality of the Christian miracles ? 
Th:s is a point universally acquiesced in ; and from 
^ the general strain of these epistles, we collect not 
merely the testimony of their authors, but the unsus- 
pected testimony of all to whom they addressed 
themselves. 

127. And let it never be forgotten that the Chris- 
tians who composed these churches, were in every 
way well quahiied to be arbiters in this question. 
They had the first authorities within their reach. 
The five hundred who, Paul says to them, had seen 
our Saviour after his resurrection, could be sought 
after ; und if not to be found, Paul would have had 
his assertion to arswer for. In some cases, they 
were the first authorities themselves, and had tiiere- 
fare no confirmation to go in search of He aj * 
peals to the miracles which had been wrought 
among them, and iu this way he commits the queS' 
Hon to their own experie^^ce* He asserts this to 



iOS 

the Galatiaiis ; and at the very time, too, that lie is 
delivering against them a most severe and irritating 
invective. He intimates the same thing repeatedly 
^o the Corinthians ; and after he had put his honesty 
to so severe a trial, does he betray any insecurity 
as to iiis character and reputation amongst them ? 
So far from this, that in arguing the general doctrine 
of resurrection from the dead, as the most effectual 
method of securing assent to it, he rests the main 
part of the argument upon their confidence in his 
fidelity as a witness. '^ But if there be no I'esurrec- 
tion from the dead, then is Christ not risen. — Yea^ 
and we are found false witnesses of God, because 
we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ, 
whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise 
not/^ Where, we ask, would have been the mighty 
charm of this argument, if Paul's fidelity had been 
questioned; and how shall we account for the free 
and intrepid manner in which lie advances it, if the < 
iiiiracles which he refers to, as wrought among 
ihenij-had been nullities of his own invention ? 

128. For the truth of the gospel history, we can 
appeal to one strong and unbroken series of testi- 
monies from the days of the apostles. But the 
great strength of the evidence lies in that efful- 
gence of testimony, which enlightens this history at 
its commencement — in the number of its original 
witnesses — in the distinct and independent records 
which thej' left behind them, and in the undouI)ted 
faith they bore among the numerous societies which 
they instituted. The concurrence of the apostolic 
fathers, and their immediate successors, forms a 
very strong and a very satisfying argument ; but 
let it be further remembered, that out of the mate- 
tlnh svlnvh comjiose^ if we may be allowed the ex- 



ji> 



i09 

pression, the original charter of our faith, we can 
select a stronger body^bf evidence than it is pos- 
sible to form out of the whole mass of subsequent 
testinjonies. 

1S9. Prophecy is another species of evidence 
-which Christianity professes an abundant claim to^ 
and which can be established on evidence altogether 
distinct from the testimony of its supporters. The 
prediction of what in future may not be delivered 
in terms so clear and intelligible as the history of 
what is past; and yet, in its actual fulfilment, it may 
leave no doubt on the mind of the enquirer that it 
was a prediction, and the event in questjon was in 
the contemplation of him who uttered it. It may be 
easy to dispose of one isolated prophecy, by ascrib- 
ing it to accident 5 hul when we observe a number of 
these prophecies, delivered in diiferent ages, and all 
bearing an application to the same events, or the 
lUgame individual, it is difficult to resist the impression 
that they were actuated by a knowledge superior to 
human. 

130. The obscurity of the prophetical language 
has been often complained of;, but it is not so often 
attended to, that if the prophecy which foretels an 
event were as clear as the narrative which describes^ 
it would in many cases annihilate the argument- 
Were the history of any individual foretold in terms 
as explicitas it is in his power of narrative to make 
them, it might be competent for any usurper to set 
himself forward, and in as far as it depended upon his 
own agency, he might realize that history. He hss 
no more to do than to take his lesson from the prophe 
cy before him ; but could it be said that fuUilment 
like this carried in it the evidence of ar-v thmg; di- 
• Jne or inn'vicnlou^ ? If the pr^>;-^' 
10 



ii 



and a Saviour, in tlie Old Testament, were different 
from what they are, and dftivered in the precise 
and iuteUigible terms of an actual history, then every 
accomplishment which could be brought about by 
the agency of those who understood the prophecy, 
and were anxious for its verification, is lost to the 
argument. It would be instantly said, that the agents 
in the transaction took their clue from the prophecy 
before them. It is the way, in fact, in which infidels 
have attempted to evade the argument as it actually 
stands. In the New Testament, an event is some- 
times said to happen, that it might be fiilfilM what 
was spoken by some of the old prophets. If every 
event which enters into the gospel had been under 
the concroul of agents merely human, and friends to 
Christianity, then we might ha^ had reason to pro- 
nounce the whole history to be one contnnied pro- 
cess of artful and designed accommodation to the 
Old Testament prophecies. But the truth is, that- 
many of the events pointed at in the Old Testament, 
so far from being brought about by the agency of 
Cliri^lians, were brought about in opposition to their 
most anxious wishes. Some of them were brought 
about by the agency of their most decided enemies; 
-nd some of them, such as the dissolution of the 
Jewish state.and the dispersion of its people amongst 
LiH countries, were quite be^^ond the controul of the 
f-ooslles and their followers, and were effected by 
the intervention of a neutral party, which at the time 
look no interest in the question, and which was a 
.stranger to the prophecy, though the unconscious 
jir^triirnent of its falfilment. 

1S1. Lord Bolingbroke has carried the objection 
so lar, that he asseits Jcsiis Christ to have brought 
oil his own death, bv a series of wilihl and precon^ 



Ill 

came after him the triumph of an am)eal to tlie old 
prophecies. This is ridiculous enough ; but it serves 
to shew with what facihty an infidel might have 
evaded the whole argument; had these prophecies 
been free of all that obscurity which is now so loudly 
complained of. 

132. The best form for the purposes of argument 
in which a prophecy cau be dehvered, is to be so 
obscure, as to leave the event, or rather its main 
circumstances, uninteUigible before the fulfilment, 
and so clear as to be mtelhgibie after it. It is easy 
to conceive that this may be an attainable object ; 
and it is saying much for the argument as it stands, 
that this happiest illustration of the clearness on the 
one hand, and this obscurity on the other, are to be 
gathered from the actual prophecies of the Old 
Testament. 

133. It is not, however, by this part of the argy- 
<0 ment, that we expect to reclaim the eneriiy of our 

rehgion from his iti fidelity 5 not that the examina- 
tion would not satisfy him, but that the examination 
will not be given. What a violence it would be of- 
fering to all his antipathies, were we to land him, at 
the outset of our discussions, among the chapters of 
Daniel or Isaiah ! He has too inveterate a contempt 
for the Bible. He nauseates the whole subject too 
strongly to be prevailed upon to accompany us to 
such an exercise. On such a subject as this, there 
is no contrast,, no approximation betwixt us 5 and 
we leave him with an assertion, (an assertion which 
he has no title to pronounce upon, till after he has 
finished the very examination which we are most 
"anxious to engage him in,) that in the numerous 
prophecies of the Old Testament, there is such a 
rnultitude of allusions to the events of the New, a^ 
will give a strong impression to the mind of every 



enquirer, that the whole forms one magnificent series 
of communications betwixt the visible and the invisi- 
ble world 5 a great plan, over which the unseen God 
presides in wisdom, and which, beginning with the 
iirst ages of the world, is still receiving new deve- 
lopements from every great step in the history of 
the species. 

134. It is impossible to give a complete exposition 
of this argument without an actual reference to the 
prophecies themselves ; and this would lead us far 
beyond the limits of our article. But it can be con- 
ceived, that a prophecy, when first announced, may 
be so obscure, as to be unintelligible in many of its 
circumstances ; and yet may so far explain itself by 
its accomplishment, as to carry along with it the 
most decisive evidence of its being a prophecy. And 
the argument may be so far strengthened by the 
number and distance, and independence, of the dif- 
ferent prophecies, all bearing an application to the % 
same individual and the same history, as to leave no 
doubt on the mind of the observer, that the events 
in question were in the actual contemplation of those 
who uttered the prediction. If the terms of the 
prophecy were not comprehended, it at least takes 
off the suspicion of the event being brought about 
by the controul or agency of men who were inte- 
Tested in the accomplishment. If the prophecies 
of the Old Testament are just invested in such a 
degree of obscurity, as is enough to disguise many 
of the leading circumstances from those who lived 
before the fulfilment, — while they derive from the 
event an explanation satisfying to all who live after 
it, then, we say, the argument for the divinity of the* 
whole is stronger, than if no such obscurity had ex- 
isted. In the history of the New Testament, we see 
a natural and consistent account of the delusion re- 



lis 

specting the Messiah, in which this obscurity had 
left the Jewish people — of the strong prejudices, 
even of the first disciples — of the manner in which 
these prejudices were dissipated, only by the accom- 
plishment — and of their final conviction in tiie im- 
port of th^S"? prophecies being at last so strong, 
that it often forms their main argument for the di- 
vinity of that new religion which they were commis- 
sioned to publish to the world. Now, assuming, 
what we still persist in asserting, and ask to be tried 
upon, that an actual comparison of the prophecies 
in the Old Testament, with their alleged fulfilment 
in th<^ New, will leave a conviction behind it, that 
there is a real correspondence betwixt them; we 
see, in the great events of the new dispensation 
brought about by the blind instrumentality of pre- 
judice and opposition, far more unambiguous cha- 
^ r acters of the finger of God, than if every thing had 
happened with the full concurrence and anticipation 
of the diflferent actors in this history. 

135. There is another essential part of the argu- 
ment, which is much strengthened by this obscurity. 
It is necessary to fix the date of the prophecies, or 
to establish, at least, that the time of their publica- 
tion was antecedent to the events to which they re- 
fer. Now, had these prophecies been dehvered in 
terms so exphcit,as*to force the concurrence of the 
whole Jewish nation, the argument for their antiquity 
would not have come down in a form as satisfying, 
as that in which it is actually exhibited. The testi- 
mony of the Jews, to the date of their sacred wri- 
tings, would have been refused as an interested tes- 
timony. Whereas, to evade the argument as it 
stands, we must admit a principle, whicb in no ques- 
tioaof crdinarj^ criticism, would be suffered for a 

10^ . ..;. 



114 

single moment to influence our understanding. We 
must conceive, that two parties, at the very time 
that they were influenced by the strongest mutual 
hostility, combined to support a fabrication ; that 
they have not violated this combination ; that the 
numerous writers on both sides of the question have 
not suflfered the slightest hint of this mysterious 
compact to escape them ; and that, though the Jews 
are galled incessantly by the triumphant tone of the 
Christian appeals to their own prophecies, they have 
never been tempted to let out a secret, which would 
have brought the argument of the Christians into 
disgrace, and shown the world, how falsehood and 
forgery mingled with their pretensions. 

136. In the rivalry, which, from the very com- 
mencement of our religion, has always obtained 
betwixt Jews and Christians, in the mutual animosi- 
ties of Christian sects, in the vast multiplication of ^ 
copies of the scriptures, in the distant and indepen- 
dent societies which were scattered over so many 
countries, we see the most satisfying pledge, both 
for the integrity of the sacred writings, and for the 
date which all parties agree in ascribing to them. 
We hear of the many securities which have been 
provided in the various forms of registrations, and 
duplicates, and depositories 5 but neither the wisdom, 
nor the interests of men, ever provided more eflec- 
tual checks against forgery and corruption, than we 
have in the instance before us. And the argument, 
in particular, for the antecedence of the prophecies 
in the events in the New Testament, is so w^ell esta- 
blished by the concurrence of the two rival parties, 
that we do not see how it is in the power of addi- 
tional testimony to strengthen it. 

137. But neither is it true, that the prophecies are 
delivered in terms so obscure, as to require a pain» 



115 

M examination, before we can obtain a full percep- 
tion of the argument. Those prophecies which re- 
late to the fate of particular cities, such as Nineveh^ 
and Tyre, and Babylon ; those which relate to the 
issue of particular wars, in which the kings of Israel 
and Judah Avere engaged ; and some of those which 
relate to the future history of the adjoining coun» 
tries, are not so much veiled by symbolical language^ 
as to elude the understanding, even of the most neg- 
ligent observers. It is true, that in these instances^ 
both the prophecy and the fulfilment appear to us 
in the light of a distant antiquity. They have aC" 
complished tlieir end. They kept alive the faith 
and worship of successive generations. They mut 
tiplied the evidences of the true religion, and ac- 
count for a phenomenon in ancient history that i^ 
otherwise inexplicable, the existence and preserva- 
tion of one solitary monument of pure theism in 
the midst of a corrupt and idolatrous world. 

138. But to descend a little further. We gather 
from the state of opinions at the time of our Sav- 
iour so many testimonies to the clearness of the old 
prophecies. The time and the place of our Saviour^s 
appearance in the world, and the triumphant pro- 
gress, if not the nature of his kingdom, were perfect- 
ly understood by the priests and chief men of Judea. 
We have it from the testimony of profane authors, 
that there was, at that time, a general expectation 
of a prince and a prophet all over the East. The 
destruction of Jerusalem was another example of the 
fulfilment of a clear prophecy ; and this added to 
other predictions uttered by our Saviour, and which 
received their accomplishment in the first generation 
of the Christian church, would have its use in sus- 
laining the faith of the disciples amidst the perplexi** 
ties ©f that anxious and distressing period. 



116 

139. We can even come down to the present day^ 
and point to the accomphshment of clear prophe- 
cies in the actual history of the world. Tlie present 
state of Egypt, and the present state of the Jews, 
are the examples which we fix upon. The one is 
an actual fulfilment of a clear prophecy ; the other 
is also an actual fulfilment, and forms in itself the 
likeliest preparation for another accomplishment 
that is yet to come. Nor do we conceive, that these 
clear and literal fulfilments exhaust the whole of the 
argument from prophecy. They only form one part 
of the argument, but a part so obvious and irresisti- 
ble, as should invite every lover of truth to the ex- 
amination of the remainder. They should secure 
such a degree of respect for the subject, as to engage 
the attention, and awaken even in the mind of the 
most rapid and superficial observer, a suspicion that 
there may be something in it. They should soften 
that contempt which repels so many from investi- 
gating the argument at all, or at all events, they 
render that contempt inexcusable. 

140. The whole history of the Jews is calculated 
to allure the curiosity, and had it not been leagued 
with the defence and illustration of our faith, would 
have drawn the attention of many a philosopher, as 
the most singular exhibition of human nature that 
ever was recorded in the annals of the world. The 
most satisfying cause of this phenomenon is to be 
looked for in the history, which describes its origin 
and progress ; and by denying the truth of that his- 
tory, you abandon the only explanation which can 
be given of this wonderful people. It is quite in 
vain to talk of the immutability of Eastern habits, 
as exemplified in the nations of Asia. What other 
people ever survived the same annihilating process- 
es? We do not talk of conquest, where the whole 



amount of the eflfect is in general a change of dy- 
nasty or of government ; but where the language, 
the habits, the denomination, and above all the geo- 
graphical position, still remain to keep up the iden- 
tity of the people. But in the history of the Jews, 
we see a strong indestructible principle, which main- 
tained them in a separate form of existence amid 
changes that no other nation ever survived. We 
confine ourselves to the overthrow of their nation 
in the first century of our epoch, and appeal to the 
disinterested testimonies of Tacitus and JosephuSj 
if ever the cruelty of war devised a process of more 
terrible energy for the utter extirpation of a name,, 
and a remembrance from the world. They have 
been dispersed among all countries. They have no 
common tie of locality or government to keep them 
together. All the ordinary principles of assimila- 
tion, which make law, and religion, and manners, so 
mich a matter of geography, are in their instance 
suspended. Even the smallest particles of this bro- 
ken mass have resisted an affinity of almost univer- 
sal operation, and remain undiluted by the strong 
and overwhelming admixture of foreign ingredients. 
And in exception to every thing which history has 
recorded of the revolutions of the species, we see 
in this wonderful race a vigorous principle of iden- 
tity which has remained in undiminished force for 
nearly two thousand years, and still pervades every 
jghred and fragment of their widely scattered popula- 
tion. Now, if the infidel insists upon it, we shall 
not rest on this as an argument. We can afford to 
give it up ; for in the abundance of our resources, 
we feel independent of it. We shall say that it is 
enough, if it can reclaim him from his levity, and 
compel his attention to the other evidences which 
we have to offer him. All we ask of him is to allow. 



lis 

that the undeniable singularity which is before his 
eyes, gives him a sanction at least, to examine the 
other singularities which we make pretension to. If 
he goes back to the past history of the Jews, he will 
see in their wars the same unexampled preservation 
of their name and their nation. He will see them 
survivmg the process of an actual transportation 
into another country. In short, he will see them to 
be unlike all other people, in what observation offers, 
and authentic history records of ihem ; and the only 
concession that we demand of him from all this, is, 
that their pretension to be unhke other people in 
their extraordinary revelations from heaven is at 
least possible, and deserves to be enquired into. 

141. It may not be out of place to expose a spe- 
cies of injustice, which has often been done to the 
Christian argument. The defence of Christianity 
consists of several distinct arguments, which have 
sometimes been multiphed beyond what is necessa- 
ry, and even sometimes beyond what is tenable. In 
addition to the main evidence which lies in the tes- 
timony given to the miracles of the gospel, there is 
the evidence of prophecy ; there is tiie evidence of 
collateral testimony ^ there is the internal evidence. 
The argument under each of these heads, is often 
made to undergo a farther subdivision 5 and it is not 
to be wondered at, that in the multitude of observa- 
tions, the defence of Christianity may of: en be made 
to rest upon ground, which, to say the least of ;t, is 
precarious or vulnerable. Now the injustice which 
we complain of is, that when the friends of our re- 
ligion are dislodged from some feeble outwork, rais- 
ed by an unskilful officer in the cause, its enemies 
raise the cry of a decisive victory. But, for our 
own part, we could see her driven from all her de- 
iencesp and surrender them without a sigh, so long 



119 

as the phalanx of tier historical evidence remains 
impenetrable. Behind this unsealed barrier, we 
could entrench ourselves, and eye the hght skirmish- 
ing before us with no other sentiment than of regret, 
that our friends should, by the eagerness of their 
misplaced zeal, have given our enemy the appear- 
ance of a triumph. 

142. We oiler no opinion as to the two-fold inter- 
pretation of prophecy ; but though it were refuted 
by argument, and disgraced by ridicule, all that 
portion of evidence which lies in the numerous ex- 
amples of literal and unambiguous fulfilment remains 
unaffected by it. Many there are, who deny the 
inspiration of the Song of Solomon. But in what 
possible way does this affect the records of the 
evangelical history? Just as much as it affects the 
Lives of Pukarch, or the Annals of Tacitus. There 
are a thousand subjects in which infidels may idly 
push the triumph, and Christians be as idly galled 
by the severity, or even the truth of their observa- 
tions. We point to the historical evidence for the 
New Testament, and ask them to dispose of it. It 
is there, that we call them to the onset ; for there 
lies the main strength of the Christian argument 
It is truCy tliat in the evidence of prophecy, we see 
a rising barrier, which, in the progress of centuries^ 
may receive from time to time a new accumulation 
to the materials which form it. In this way, the 
evidence of prophecy may come in time to surpass 
the evidence of miracles. The restoration of the 
Jews will be the fulfilment of a clear prophecy, and 
form a proud and animating period in the iiistory of 
our rehgion, " ihe fall of them the riches of the 
Avorld, and the diminishing of them the riches of the 
C^eniilfs, how much more tlieir fulness?*^ 

14->. The late speculations in gtologj' term nriOth- 



120 

er example of a distant and unconnected circum* 
stance, being suffered to cast an unmerited disgrace 
over the whole of the argument. They give a higher 
antiquity to the world, than most of those who read 
the Bible had any conception of. Admit this anti- 
quity, and in what possible way does it touch upon 
the historical evidence for the New Testament? 
The credibihty of the gospel miracles stands upon 
its own appropriate foundation, the recorded testi- 
mony of numerous and unexceptionable witnesses. 
The only way iti which we can overthrow that credi- 
bility is by attacking the testimony, or disproving 
the authenticity of the record. Every other science 
is tried upon its own peculiar evidences ; and all we 
contend for is, that the same justice be done to 
theolog)*. When a mathematician offers to apply 
his reasoning to the phenomena of mind, the vota- 
ries of mor^d science resent it as an invasion, and 
make their appeal to the evidence of consciousness. 
When an amateur of botany, upon some vague 
analogies, ©ffers his confident affirmations as to the 
structure and parts of the human body, there would 
be an instantaneous appeal to the knife and demon- 
strations of the anatomist- Should a mineralogist, 
upon the exhibition of an ingenious or well-support- 
ed theory, pronounce upon the history of our Sav- 
iour and his miracles, we would call it another ex- 
ample of an arbitrary and unphilosophical extension 
of principles beyond the field of their legitimate 
application. We would appeal to the kind and 
quantity of testimony upon which that h story is 
supported. We would suffer ourselves to be de- 
lighted by the brilliancy, or even convinced by the 
evidence of iiis speculations, but we would feel that 
the history of these facts, which form the ground- 
work of our faith, is as little affected by them., 'x^ 



121 

tbe history of any storm, or battle, or warrior, 
which has come down to us in the most genuine and 
approved records of past ages. 

144. But whatever be the external evidence of 
testimony, or however strong may be Us visible cha- 
racters of truth and honesty, is not the falsehood or 
the contradiction which we may detect in the sub- 
ject of that testhnony sufficient to discredit it ? Had 
we been original spectators of our Saviour^s mira- 
cles, we must have had as strong a conviction of 
their reality, as it is in the power of testimony to 
give us. Had we been the eye-witnesses of his 
character and history, and caught from actual ob- 
servation the impression of his wgrth, the internal 
proofs, that no jugglery or falsehood could have 
been intended, would have been certainly as strong 
rs the internal proofs which are now exhibited to 
lis, and which consist in the simplicity of the narra- 
tive, and that tone of perfect honesty which per- 
vades in a manner so distinct and intelligible every 
composition of the apostles. Yet, with all these 
advantages, if Jesus Christ had asserted as a 
truth, what we confidently know to be a false- 
hood ; had he, for example, upon the strength of 
bis prophetical endowments, pronounced upon the 
secret of a person's age, and told us that he was 
thirty, when he knew him to be forty, would not 
this have made us stumble at all his pretensions, 
and, in spite of every other argument and ap- 
pearance, would we not have withdrawn our con- 
fidence from him as a teacher from God ? This 
we allow would have been a most serious dilemma. 
It would have been that state of neutrality which 
admits of nothing positive or satisfying on eitheir 
.sifle of the question : or rather, what is still more 

n ■ ' 



122 

distressing, which gave the most positive and satis- 
factory appearances on both sides. We could not 
abandon the truth of the miracles, because we saw 
them. Could we give them up, we should deter- 
mine on a positive rejection, and our minds would 
find repose in absolute infidelity. But as the case 
stands, it is scepticism. There is nothing hke it in 
any other department of inquiry. We can appeal 
to no actual example ; but a student of natural sci- 
ence may be made to understand the puzzle. — 
When he asks him, how he would act^ if the expe- 
riments, which he conducts under the most perfect 
sameness of circumstances, were to land him in 
opposite results ? He would vary and repeat his 
experiments. He would try to detect the inconsis- 
tency, and would rejoice, if he at last found, that 
the difficulty lay in the errors of his own observa- 
tion, and not in the inexplicable nature of the sub- 
ject. All this he would do in anxious and repeat- 
ed endeavours, before he inferred that nature per- 
severed in no law, and that that constancy, which 
is the foundation of all science, was perpetually 
broke in upon by the most capricious and unlook- 
ed for appearances, before he would abandon him- 
self to scepticism, and pronounce philosophy to be 
an impossible attainment. 

145. It is our part to imitate this example, li 
Jesus Christ has, on the one hand, performed mir- 
acles, and sustained in the whole tenour of his his- 
tory the character of a prophet, and, on the oth- 
er hand, asserted to be true, what we undeniably 
know to be a falsehood, this is a dilemma which we 
are called upon to resolve by every principle, that 
can urge the human mind in the pursuit of liberal 
inquiry. It is not enough to say, that the plienorn- 
ena in question do not foil within the (i^miiiiey? Ov 



123 

philosophy ; and we therefore leave them as a fair 
exercise and amusement to commentators. The 
mathematician may say, and has said the same 
thing of the morahst ; yet there are moralists in 
the world, who will prosecute their speculations in 
spite of him ; and what is more, there are men 
who take a wider survey than either, who rise above 
these professional prejudices, and will allow that, 
in each department of inquiry, the subjects which 
offer are entitled to a candid and respectful con- 
sideration. The naturahst may pronounce the 
same rapid judgment upon the difficulties of the 
theologian ; yet there ever will be theologians who 
feel a peculiar interest in their subject; and we 
trust that there ever will be men, with a higher 
grasp of mind than either the mere theologian, or 
the mere naturalists, who are ready to acknowl- 
edge the claims of truth in every quarter, — who 
are superior to that narrow contempt, which has 
made such an unhappy and malignant separation 
among the different orders of scientific men, — who 
will examine the evidences of the gospel history, 
and, if they are found to be sufficient, will view the 
miracles of our Saviour with the same liberal and 
philosophic curiosity with which they would con- 
template any grand phenomenon in the moral his- 
tory of the species. If there really appears, on 
the face of this investigation, to be such a difficul- 
ty as the one in question, a philosopher of the or- 
der we are now describing will make many an anx- 
ious effort to extricate himself; he will not soon 
acquiesce in a scepticism, of which there is no oth- 
er example in the wide field of human speculation ; 
he will either make out the insufficiency of the his- 
torical evidence, or prove that the falsehood ^s- 
<»Tibcd to Jesus Christ has no existence. He will 



124 

try to dispose of one of the terms of the alleged 
contradiction, before he can prevail upon himself 
to admit both, and deliver his mind to a state of 
uncertainty most painful to those who respect truth 
in all her departments. 

146. We offer the above observations, not so 
much for the purpose of doing away a difficulty 
which we conscientiously believe to have no exis- 
tence, as for the purpose of exposing the rapid, 
careless, and unphilosophical procedure of some 
enemies to the Christian argument. They, in the 
first nistance, take up the rapid assumption, that 
Jesus Christ has, either through himself, or Ins im- 
mediate disciples, made an assertion as to the an- 
tiquity of the globe, which, upon the faith of their 
geological speculations, they know to be a false- 
hiiod. After having fastened this stain upon the 
suhject of the testimony, they, by one summary 
act of the understanding, lay aside all the external 
evidence for the miracles and general character of 
our Saviour. They will not wait to be told, that 
this evidence is a distinct subject of examination^ 
and that, if actually attended to, it will be found 
much stronger than the evidence of any other fact 
or history which has come down to us in the writ- 
ten memorials of past ages. If this evidence is to 
be rejected, it must be rejected on its own proper 
grounds ; but if all positive testimony, and all 
sound reasoning upon human affairs, go to estab- 
lish it, then the existence of such proof is a phe- 
nomenon which remains to be accounted for, and 
must ever stand in the way of positive infidelity.— 
Until we dispose of it, we can carry our opposi- 
tion to the claims of our rehgion no farther than 
to the length of an ambiguous and mid-way scepti- 
cism. By adopting a decisive infidehty, we reject 



125 

n testimony, whiclij of all others, has come dowti 
to us in the most perfect and unsuspicious form. — 
We lock up a source of evidence, which is often 
repaired to in other questions of science and his- 
tory. We cut off the authority of principles, which 
if onCe exploded, will not terminate in the sohtary 
mischief of darkening and destroying our theolo- 
gy, but will shed a baleful uncertainty over many 
of the most interesting speculations on which the 
human mind can expatiate. 

147. Even admitting, then, this single objection 
in the subject of our Saviour's testimony, the whole 
length to which we can legitimately carry the ob- 
jection is scepticism, or that dilemma of the mind 
into which it is throv/n by two contradictory ap- 
pearances. This is the unavoidable result of ad- 
mitting both terms in the alleged contradiction. 
Upon the strength of all the reasoning which has 
hitherto occupied this article, we challenge the in- 
fidel to dispose of the one term which lies in the 
strength of the historical evidence. But we under- 
take to dispose of the other which lies in the al- 
leged falsehood of our Saviour's testimony. We 
will not tiy to make our escape by denying the 
truth of the geological speculation. We are not 
afraid to own that we are impressed by its evidence, 
and feel our imaginations regaled by its briUiancy. 
We will not try to do away the supposed falsehood, 
Tiy asserting what has been called the Mosaical an- 
t'quily of the world; but we den}^ that our Saviour 
ever asserted this antiquity. It is true that he 
(rives his distinct testimony to the divine legation 
of Moses ; but does Moses ever say, that when God 
created the heavens and the earth, he did more at 
the time alluded to than transfornn them out df 
IP 



125 

previously existing materials ? Or does lie e\er say, 
that there was not an interval of many ages be- 
twixt the iirst act of creation, described in the first 
verse of the book of Genesis, and said to have 
been performed at the beginnings and those more 
detailed operations, the accoiuit of Avhich com- 
mences at the second verse, and 'which are described 
to us under the allegory of days ? Or does he ever 
bring forward any literal interpretation of this his- 
tory which brir.gs him into the slightest contact 
with the doctrines of geology ? Or^ finally, does he 
ever mane us to understand, that^ the genealogies 
of man went any farther than to fix the antiquity of 
the species, and, of consequence, that they left the 
antiquity of the globe a free subject for the specu* 
iations of philosophers ? The historical evidence 
reauiins in all the obstinacy of experimental and 
•wdl attested facts ; and as there are so many ways 
of expunging the other term m the alleged contra- 
diction, we appeal to every enlightened reader, if it 
is at all candid or philosophical to sulfer it to stand ? 
148. There is another species of evidence for 
Christianity which we have not yet noticed. What 
is commonly called the internal evidence^ or those 
proofs that Christianity >'s a dispensation from hea- 
ven founded upon the nature of its doctrineSj and 
the character of the dispensation itself. The term 
*^ internal evidence^^ may be made indeed to take 
ap more than this. We may take up^the New Tes- 
tament as a human composition, and without any 
reference to its subsequent history^ or to the direct 
and external testimonies b}^ which it is supported. 
We may collect from the performance itself such 
marks of t^th and honesty, S5 entitle us to conclude, 
that the human agents employed in the construc- 
tion of this book were men of vef sx^ity and prtnci- 



127 

pie. This argument lias already been resorted to, 
and a very substantial argument it is. It is of fre» 
quent application in questions of general criticism ; 
and upon its authority alone many of the writers of 
past times have been admitted into credit, and many 
have been condemned as unworthy of it. The nu- 
merous and correct allusions to the customs and 
institutions, and other statistics of the age in nvhich 
the pieces of the New Testament profess to have 
been written, give evidence of their antiquity. The 
artless and undesigned way in which these allusions 
are interwoven with the whole history, impresses 
upon us the perfect simplicity of the authors, and 
the total absence of every wish or intention to palm 
an imposture upon the world. And there is such a 
thing too as a general air of authenticity, v/hich, 
liowever difficult to resolve into particulars, gives a 
very close and powerful impression of truth to the 
narrative. There is nothing fanciful in this species 
of internal evidence. It carries in it all the cer- 
tainty of experience, and experience too upon a 
familiar and well known subject, — the characters of 
honesty in the written testimony of our fellow men. 
We are often called upon in private and e very-day 
rife to exercise our judgment upon the spoken testi- 
ijiony of others, and we both feel and understand 
the powerful evidence which lies in the tone, the 
manner, the circumstaritiaUty, the number, the 
agreement of the witnesses, and the consistency of 
all the particulars with what we already know fronr* 
other sources of information. Now it is undeniable 
that all those marks which give evidence and crei 
bility to spoken testimony, may also exist to a \k 
impressive degree in written testimony^; and t 
argument founded upon them, so far from bei 
fanciful or illegitimate; has ^he sanction of a pr 



128 

.eiple which no philosoplier will refuse i the experi- 
ence of the human mind on a subject on which \t 
is much exercised, and which hes completely with- 
in the range of its observation. 

149. We cannot say so much, liowever^ for the 
other species of internal evidence, that which is 
founded upon the reasonableness of the doctrines, 
or the agreement which is conceived to subsist be- 
twixt the nature of the Christian religion and the 
character of the Supreme Being* We have expe- 
rience of man, but we have no experience of God. 
We can reason upon the procedure of man in given 
circumstances, because this is an accessible subject, 
and comes under the cognizance of observation ; 
but we cannot reason on the procedure of the Al- 
mighty in given circumstances. This is an inac- 
cessible subject, and comes not within the limits of 
direct and personal observation. The one, like the 
scale, and compass, and measurements of Sir Isaac 
Newton, will lead you on safe and firm footing to 
the true economy of the heavens 5 the other, hke 
the ether and whirlpools, and unfounded imagina- 
tions of Des Cartes, will not only lead you to mis- 
conceive that economy, but to maintain a stubborn 
opposition to the only competent evidence that can 
be offered upon the subject. 

150. The writer of the present article feels, that 
in thus disclaiming all support from what is com- 
monly understood by the internal evidence, he does 

lot follow the general example of those who have 
ritten on the Deistical controversy. Take up 
^land's performance, and it will be found, tliat one 
Tof his discussion is expended upon the reason- 
aness oT the doctrines, and in asserting the va- 
ty of the argument which is founded upon that 
sonableness.-' It would save a va^t de:^l of con.-- 



129 

ti'Oversy,if it could be proved that all this is super- 
fluous and uncalled for ; that upon the authority of 
the proofs already insisted on, the New Testament 
must be received as a revelation from heaven ; and 
that, instead*of sitting in judgment over it, nothing 
remains on our part, but an act of unreserved sub- 
mission to £dl the doctrine and information which it 
-offers to us. It is conceived, that in this way the 
general argument might be made to assume a more 
powerful and impressive aspect; and it is hoped, 
that the reader will not look upon the article as 
prolonged to an unnecessary length, if by unfolding 
the speculation, the defence of Christianity can be 
more accommodated to the spirit and philosophy 
of the timers. 

151. Since the spirit of Lord Bacon's philosophy 
began to be rightly understood, the science of ex- 
ternal nature has advanced with a rapidity unex- 
ampled in the history of ail former ages. The 
great axiom of his philosophy is so simple in its 
nature, and so undeniable in its evidence, that it is 
astonishing how philosophers were so l^te in ac- 
knowledging it, or in being directed by its authori- 
ty* It is more than two thousand years since the 
phenomena of external nature were objects of lib- 
eral curiosity to speculative and intelligent men. 
Yet two centuries have scarcely elapsed since the 
true path of investigation has been rightly pursu- 
ed, and steadily persevered in. Since the evidence 
of experience has been received as paramount to 
every other evidence, or, in other words, since 
philosophers have agreed that the only way to 
learn the magnitude of an object is to measure itj 
the only way to learn its tangible properties is to 
touch it, and the only way to learn its visible pro- 
perties is to look at it« 



IS* 

162. Nothing can be more safe or »ore infalli- 
ble than the procedure of the inductive philosophy^ 
as appHed t© the phenomena of external nature. 
It is the eye, or the ear-witness of every thing which 
it records. It is at liberty to classify a*ppearances, 
but then in the work of classifying, it must be di- 
rected only by observation. It may groupe phe- 
nomena according to their resemblances. It may 
express these resemblances in words, and an- 
nounce them to the world in the form of general 
laws. Yet such is the hardiliood of the inductive 
philosophy, that though a single well-attested fact 
should overturn a whole system, that fact must be 
admitted. A single experiment is often made to 
cut short the finest process of generalization, how* 
ever painful and humiliating the sacrifices, and 
though a theory, the most simple and magnificent 
that ever charmed the eye of an enthusiast, was on 
the eve of emerging from it. 

153. In submitting, then, to the rules of the in- 
ductive philosophy, we do not deny that certain 
jsaerifices must be made, and some of the most ur- 
gent propensities of the mind put under severe 
restraint and regulation. The human mind feels 
restless and dissatisfied under the anxieties of igno- 
rance. It longs for the repose of conviction ; and 
to gain this repose, it will ofterf rather piecipitate 
its conclusions, than wait for the tardy lights of ob- 
servation and experiment. There is such a thing, 
too, as the love of simplicity and system^ — a preju- 
dice of the understanding, which disposes it to 
include all the phenomena of nature under a few 
sweeping generalities — an indolence, which loves t'^ 
repose on the beauties of a theory, rather than en- 
counter the fatiguing detail of its evidence — a pain- 
ftii reluctance to the admission of facts, whicn^ 



131 

Jiowever true, break in upon the majestic simpIiGi- 
ty that we would fain asci'ibe to the laws and 
operations of the universe. 

154. Now, it is the glory of Lord Bacon's philo- 
sophy, to have achieved a victory over all these 
delusions — to have discipUned the minds of its vo- 
taries into an entire submission to evidence-^to 
liave trained them up in a kind of steady coldness 
to all the splendour and magnificence of theory, 
and taught them to follow, with an unfaultering 
step, wherever the sure though humbler path of 
experiment may lead them. 

155. To justify the cautious procedure of the 
inductive philosophy, nothing more is necessary than 
to take a view of the actual powers and circum- 
stances of liumanity ; of the entire ignorance of 
jiian, when he comes into the world, and of the 
?steps by vv'hich that ignorance is enhghtened; of 
tJie numerous errors into which he is misled, the 
moment he ceases to observe, and begins to pre- 
sume or to excogitate 5 of the actual history of sci- 
ence 5 its miserable progress, so long as categories 
and principles retained their ascendency in the 
schools I and the splendour and rapidity of its tri- 
iunphs, so soon as man understood, that he was 
nothing more than the disciple of Nature, and must 
lake his lesson as Nature offers it to him. 

156. What is true of the science of external 
iiature liolds equally true of the science and phe- 
nomena of mind. On this subject, too, the pre-^ 
sinnptuous ambition of man carried him far from 
the sober path of experimental inquiry. He con- 
ceived that his business was not to observe, but to 
speculate ; to construct systems rather than consult 
Lis own experience, and the experience of others 3 
t<!i collect the materials of his theorv. not from the^ 



132 

Mstory of observed facts, but from a set of assumed 
and excogitated principles. Now the same obser- 
vations apply to this department of enquiry. We 
must admit to be true, not what we presume, but 
what we find to be so. We must restrain the en- 
terprises of fancy. A law of the human mind must 
be only a series of well authenticated facts, reduced 
to one general description, or grouped together un- 
der some general points of resemblance^ The 
business of the moral as well as of the natural phi- 
losopher is not to assert what he excogitates, but 
to record what he observes ; not to amuse himself 
with the speculations of fancy, but to describe plie- 
nomena as he sees ar as he feels them. This is^ 
the business of the moral as well as of the natural 
enquirer. We must extend the application of Lord 
Bacon^s principles to moral and metaphysical sub- 
jects. It was long before this apphcation wasi 
recognized, or acted upon by philosophers. Many 
of the continental speculations are still infected 
with the presumptuous a priori spirit of the old 
schools ; though the writings of Reid and Stewart 
have contributed much to chase away this spirit 
from the metaphysics of our own country, and to 
bring the science of mind, as well as matter, under 
the entire dominion of the inductive philosophy. 

157. These general observations we conceive to 
be a most direct and apphcable introduction to that 
part of the subject which is before us. In discus- 
sing the evidence of Christianity, all that we ask of 
oar reader is, to bring along with him the same 
sober and inductive spirit, that is now deemed so 
necessary in the prosecution of the other sciences ; 
to abandon every system of theology, that is not 
supported by evidence, however mucli it may grat- 
ify hi$ taste, or regulate bis imagin??tion« snd t- 



18S 

admit any system of theology that is supported by 
evidence, however repugnant to his feeLngs or his 
prejudices ; to make conviction, in fact, paramount 
to inchnation, or to fancy ; and to maintain 
through the whole process of the investigation, that 
strength and intrepidity of character which will fol« 
low wherever the hght of argument may conduct^ 
though it should land him in conclusions the most 
nauseous and unpalatable. 

158. We have no time to enter into causes ; but 
the fact is undeniable. Many philosophers of the 
present day are disposed to nauseate every thing 
connected with theology. They associate some- 
thing low and ignoble with the prosecution of it. 
They regard it, as not a fit subject for liberal en- 
quiry. They turn away from it with disgust, as 
one of the humblest departmei;its of literary exer- 
tion. We do not say that they reject its evidences^,, 
but they evade the investigation of them. They 
feel no conviction ; not because they have estab* 
hshed the fallacy of a single argument, but because 
they entertain a general dishke at the subject, and 
will not attend to it. They love to expatiate in 
the more kindred fields of science or elegant litera- 
ture; and while the most respectful caution, and 
humility, and steadiness, are seen to preside over 
every department of moral and physical investiga* 
tion^ theology is the only subject that is suffered to 
remain the victim of prejudice^ and of a contempt 
the most unjust, and the most unphilosophical. 

159. We do not speak of this feeling as an impi- 
ety ; we speak of it as an ofience against the princi 
pies of just speculation. We do not speak of it as 
it allures the heart from the influence of religion ;. 
we speak of it as it allures the understanding from 

13 



the influence of evidence and truth. In a word, vr6. 
are not preaching against it ; we reason against it* 
We contend that it is a transgression against the 
rules of the inductive philosopiiy. All that we 
want is, the application of Lord Bacon's principles 
to the investigation before us 5 and as the influence 
of prejudice and disgust is banished from every 
other department of enquiry, we conceive it fair 
that it thould be banished from theology also, and 
that our subject should have the common advantage 
of a hearing, — where no partiality of the heart or 
fancy is admitted, and no other influence acknowl- 
edged than the influence of evidence over the con- 
viction of the understanding. 

160. Let us therefore evince the success and fe- 
licity with which Lord Bacon's principles may be 
applied to the investigation before us. 

161. According to Bacon, man is ignorant ot 
every thing antecedent to observation, and there is 
not a single department of enquiry in which he 
does not err the moment that he abandons it. It is 
true, that the greater part of every individual's 
knowledge is derived immediately from testimony; 
but it is only testimony that brings home to his 
conviction the observation of others. Still it is ob- 
tservation which lies at the bottom of his knowledge. 
Still it is man taking his lesson from the actual 
condition of the thing which he contemplates y a 
condition that is altogether independent of his will, 
and which no speculation of his own can modify or 
destroy. There is an obstinacy in the processes 
of nature which he cannot controuL He must fol- 
low it. The construction of a system should not 
Be a creative, but an imitative process, which ad- 
mits nothing but what evidence assures us to be 
^rue, and is founded only on the lessons of experi- 



185 

feiice. It is not by the exercise of a sublime and 
speculative ingenuity that man arrives at truth. It 
is by letting himself down to the drudgery of ob- 
servation. It is by descending to the sober work 
of seeing, and feeling, and experimenting. Wher- 
ever, in short, he has not had the benefit of his 
own observation, or the observation of others 
brought home to his conviction by creditable testi- 
mony, there he is ignorant. 

162. This is found to hold true, evcH in those 
sciences where the objects of enquiry are the most 
familiar and the most accessible. Before the right 
method of philosophising was acted upon, how 
grossly did philosophers misinterpret the phenome- 
na of external nature I When a steady perseve- 
rance in the path of observation could have led 
them to infallible certainty, how misled in their 
conception of every thing around them, when, in- 
stead of making use of their senses, they delivered 
themselves up to the exercises of a solitary ab- 
straction, and thought to explain every thing by the 
Ikntastic play of unmeaning terms, and imaginary 
principles! And, when at last set on the right path 
of discovery, how totally different were the results 
of actual observation from those systems which an-p 
tiquity had rendered venerable, and the authority 
of great names had recommended to the acqui- 
escence of many centuries! This proves, that, 
even in the most familiar subjects, man knows 
every thing by observation, and is ignorant of 
everry thing without it ; and that he cannot ad- 
vance a single footstep in the acquirement of truth, 
till he bid adieu to the delusions of theory, and 
Sternly refuse indulgence to its fondest anticipa^ 
tionB. 



136 

163, Thus, there is both a humilty and a hardi- 
hood in the philosophical temper^ They are the 
same in principle, though different in display. The 
first is founded on a sense of ignorance, and dispo- 
ses the mind of the philosopher to pay the most 
respectful attention to every thing that is offered in 
the shape of evidence. The second consists in a 
determined purpose to reject and to sacrifice every 
thing that offers to oppose the influence of evidence, 
or to set itself up against its legitimate and well es- 
tablished conclusions. In the ethereal whirlpools 
of Des Cartes, we see a transgression against the 
humility of the philosophical character. It is the 
presumption of knowledge on a subject, where the 
total want of observation should have confined him 
to the modesty of ignorance. In the Newtonian 
system of the world, we see both humility and 
hardihood. Sir Isaac commences his investigation 
with all the modesty of a respectful enquirer. His 
is the docility of a scholar, who is sensible that he 
has all to learn. He takes his lesson as experience 
offers it to him, and yields a passive obedience to 
the authority of this great school-master. It is in 
his obstinate adherence to the truth which his mas- 
ter has given him, that the hardihood of the philo- 
sophical character begins to appear. We see him 
announce with entire confidence, both the fact and 
its legitimate consequences. We see him not de- 
terred by the singularity of his conclusions, and 
quite unmindful of that host of antipathies which 
the reigning taste and philosophy of the times 
mustered up to oppose him. We see him resisting 
the influence of every authority but the authority 
of experience. We see that the beauty of the old 
system had no power to charm him from that pro- 
cess of investigation by which he destroyed it. We 



187 

see him sitting upon its merits with the severity of 
a judge, unmovad by all those graces of simphcity 
and magnificence which the subhme genius of itg 
inventor had thrown around it. 

164. We look upon these two constituents of th^ 
philosophical temper, as forming the best prepara* 
tion for finally terminating in the decided Christian. 
In appreciating the pretensions of Christianity^ 
there is a call both upon the humility and the har- 
dihood of every enquirer 5 the humility which feels 
its own ignorance, and submits without reserve to 
whatever comes before it in the shape of authentic 
and well-established evidence ; and the hardihood 
which sacrifices every taste and every prejudice at 
the shrine of conviction, which defies the scorn of 
a pretended philosophy, which is not ashamed of a 
profession that some conceive to be degraded by 
the homage of the superstitious vulgar, which can 
bring down its mind to the homeliness of the gospel, 
and renounce without a sigh all that is elegant, and 
splendid, and fascinating in the speculations of mo^ 
ralists. In attending to the complexion of the 
Christian argument, we are widely mistaken, if it 
is not precisely that kind of argument which will 
be most readily admitted by those whose mind3* 
have been tra ned to the soundest habits of philo- 
sophical investigation ; and if that spirit of caur 
4ious and sober-minded enquiry to which modern 
science stands indebted for all her triumphs, is not 
the very identical spirit which leads us to " cast 
down our lofty imaginations, and to bring every 
thought into the captivity of the obedience pf 
t^hrist.'^ 

165. On entering into any department of enqui^ 
ry, the best preparation is that docility ®f mind whic^l^ 

13* 



138 

iS founded on a sense of our total ignorance of the 
subject 5 and nothing is looked upon as more un- 
philosophical than the temerity of that a priori 
spirit, which disposes many to presume before they 
investigate. But if we admit the total ignorance of 
ma^ antecedent to observation, even in those sci- 
ences where the objects of enquiry are the nearest 
and the most familiar, we will be more ready to 
admit his total ignorance of those subjects which 
are more remote and more inaccessible. If caution 
and modesty be esteemed so phdosophical, even 
when employed in that little field of investigation 
which comes within the range of our senses ; why 
should they not be esteemed philosophical when em- 
ployed on a subject so vast, so awful, so remote from 
direct and personal observation, as the government 
of God ? There can be nothing so completely above 
us, and beyond us, as the plans of the Infinite Mind, 
which extend to all time, and embrace all w orlds. 
There is nosubject to which the cautious and humble 
spirit of Lord Bacon's philosophy is more applicable ; 
nor can we conceive a more glaring rebellion against 
the authority of his maxims, than for the beings of 
a day to sit in judgment upon the Eternal, and ap- 
ply their paltry experience to the counsels of his 
high and unfathomable wisdom. We do not speak 
of it as impious ; we speak of it as unphilosophi- 
cal. We are not bringing the decrees of the or- 
thodox to bear against it; we are bringing the 
principles of our modern and enlightened schools. 
We are applying the very same principles to a 
system of theism, that we would do to a system of 
geology. Both may regale the fancy with the gran- 
deur of their contemplations ; both may receive 
embellishment from the genius and imagination of 
their invi^ntors ; both may carry us along with the 



1S9 

powers of a captivating eloquence. But all this is 
not enough to satisfy the severe and scrupulous 
spirit of the modern philosophy. Give us facts* 
Give us appearances- Show us how, from the ex- 
perience of a life or a century, you can draw a le- 
gitimate conclusion so boundless in its extent, and 
by which you propose to fix down both the proces- 
ses of a remote«antiquity, and the endless progres- 
sions either of nature or of providence in future 
ages. Are there any historical documents ? Any 
memorials of the experience of past times ? On a 
question of such magnitude we would esteem the 
recorded observations of some remote ages to be 
peculiarly valuable, and worth all the ingenuity and 
eloquence, which a philosopher could bestow on the 
limited experience of one or two generations. A 
process of geology may take millions of years be« 
fore it reaches its accomplishment. It is impossible, 
that we can collect the law or the character of this 
process fiom the experience of a single century, 
which does not furnish us one smgie step in this 
vast and hnmeasurabie progression. We look as 
far as we can into a distant antiquity, and' take hold 
with avidity of p,ny authentic document, by which 
we can asc^rtaiii a single fact to guide and to en- 
lighten us in this interesting speculation. The same 
caution is necessary in the subject before us. The 
administration of the Supreme Being is coeval with 
the first purposes of his uncreated mind, and it 
points to eternity. The life of man is but a point 
in that progress, to which we see no end, and can 
assign no beginning. We are not able to collect the 
law or the character of this administration from an 
experience so momentary. We therefore cast an 
eye on the history of past times. We examine 
every document which comes before us. We com' 



140 

pare all the moral phenomena, which can be col- 
lected from the narrative ef antiquity. W,e seize 
with avidity every record of the manifestation of 
Providence, every fact which can enlighten the 
ways of God to man ; and we would esteem it a de- 
viation from the right spirit and temper of philoso- 
phical investigation, were we to suffer the crude or 
fanciful speculations of our own limited experience 
to take a precedency over the authentic informa- 
tion of history. 

166. But this is not all. Our experience is not 
only limited in point of time 5 it is also hmited in 
point of extent. To assign the character of the 
divine administration from the httle that offers 
itself to the notice of our own personal experience, 
would be far more absurd than to infer the history 
and character of the kingdom from the history and 
character of our own families. Vain is the at* 
tempt to convey in language what the most power- 
ful imagination sinks under 5 how small the globe, 
and all which it inherits^ is in the immensity of cre- 
ation I How humble a corner in the immeasurable 
fields of nature and of providence I If the whole 
visible creation were to be swept away, we think of 
the dark and awful solitude which it would leave 
behind in the unpeopled regions of space. But to a 
mind that could take in the whole, and throw a 
wide survey over the innumerable worlds which 
roll beyond the ken of the human eye, there would 
be no blank, and the universe of God would ap- 
pear a scene as goodly and majestic as ever. Now 
it is the administration of this God that we sit in 
judgment upon ; the counsels of Him, whose wisdom 
and energy are of a kind so inexplicable ; whom no 
magnitude can overpower, whom no littleness can 
es'^npr, T/hom no varietj^ can bewilder 3 who gives 



141 

vegetation to every blade of grass^ and moves every 
particle of blood which circulates through the veins 
of the meanest animal; and all this by the same 
omnipotent arm that is abroad upon tiie universe, 
and presides in high authority over the destiny of 
all worlds. 

167. It is impossible not to mingle the moral im- 
pressions of piety with such a contemplation. But 
suppose these impressions to be excluded, that the 
whole may be reduced to a matter of abstract and 
unfeeling intelligence. The question under con- 
sideration is^ How far the experience of man can 
lead him to any certain conclusions, as to the char- 
acter of the divine administration ? If it does lead 
Iiim to some certain conclusions, then, in the spirit 
of the Baconian philosophy, he will apply these 
conclusions to the information derived from other 
sources, and they will of course affect, or destroy^ 
or confirm the credibility of that information. If, 
on the other hand, it appears that experience gives 
no hght, no direction on the subject, then in 
the very same spirit, he will submit his mind as a 
blank surface to all the positive information which 
comes to it from any other quarter. We take our 
lesson as it comes to us, provided we are satisfied 
beforehand, that it comes from a source that is au- 
thentic. We set up no presumptions of our own 
against the authority of the unquestiomible evi- 
dence that we have met with, and reject all the sug- 
gestions which our defective experience can furnish, 
as the follies of a rash and fanciful speculation. 

168. Now, let it be observed, that the great 
strength of the Christian argument lies in the his- 
torical evidence for the truth of the gospel nar- 
rative. In discussing th^ light of this evidence, we 
walk by the light of experience. We assign the 



degree of weight that is due to the testimony of the 
first Christians upon the observed principles of hu- 
man nature. We do not step beyond the cautious 
procedure of Lord Bacon's philosophy. We keep 
within the safe and certain limits of experimental 
truth. We beheve the testimony of the apostles, 
because, from what we know of the human char- 
acter, it is impossible that men in their circum-- 
stances could have persevered as they did in the 
assertion of a falsehood ; it is impossible that they 
could have imposed this falsehood upon such a mul- 
titude of followers ; it is impossible that they could 
have escaped detection, surrounded as they were 
by a host of enemies, so eager and so determined 
in their resentments. On this kind of argument 
we are quite at home. There is no theory, no as- 
sumption. We feel every inch of the ground 
we are treading upon. The degree of credit 
that should be annexed to the testimony of the 
apostles is altogether a question of experience. 
Every principle which we apply towards the de- 
cision of this question, is founded upon materials 
which lie before us, and are every day within the 
teach of observation. Our belief in the testimony 
of the apostles is founded upon our experience of 
human nature and human affairs. In the whole 
process of the enquiry, we never wander from that 
sure, though humble path, which has been pointed 
out to us by the great master of philosophising. 
We never cast off the authority of those maxims, 
which have been found in every other department 
of knowledge to be sound and infalhble. We never 
suffer assumption to take the precedency of obser- 
vation, or abandon that sa|e and certain mode of 
investigation, which is the only one suited to the 
real mediocrity of our powers* 



143 

169. It appears to us, that the disciples of the 
infidel philosophy have reversed this process. 
They take a loftier flight. You seldom find them 
upon the ground of the historical evidence. It is 
not, in general, upon the weight, or the nature of 
human testimony, that they venture to pronounce 
on the credibihty of the Christian revelation. It is 
on the character of that revelation itself. It is on 
Avhat they conceive to be the absurdity of its doc- 
trines. It is because they see something in the na- 
ture or dispensation of Christianity, which they 
think disparaging to the attributes of God, and not 
agreeable to that line of proceeding which the Al- 
mighty should observe in the government of his 
creatures. Rousseau expresses his astonishment 
at the strength of the historical testimony 5 so 
strong, that the inventor of the narrative appeared 
to him to be more miraculous than the hero. But 
the absurdities of this said revelation are sufficient 
in his mind to bear down the whole weight of its 
direct and external evidences. There was some- 
thing in the doctrines of the New Testament repul- 
sive to the taste and the imagination, and perhaps 
even to the convictions of this interesting enthusi- 
ast. He could not reconcile them with his pre- 
established conceptions of the divine character and 
mode of operation. To submit to these doctrines, 
he behoved to surrender that theism, which the 
powers of his ardent mind had wrought up into a 
most beautiful and delicious speculation. Such a 
sacrifice was not to be made. It was too painful. 
It would have taken away from him^ wliat every 
mind of genius and sensibility esteems to be the 
liighest of all luxuries. It would destroy a. system, 
which had all that is fair and magnificent to recomr 
meiid iU and nior tlie <'?racefuhiess of that fine in- 



144 

tellectuai picturej on which this wonderful man had 
bestowed ail the embellishments of feehng, and fan- 
cy, and eloquence. 

170. In as far, then, as we can judge of the con- 
tact of man in given circumstances, we would pas& 
a favourable sentence upon the' testimony of the 
apostles. But, says the Deist, I judge of the con- 
duct of God ^ and what the apostles tell me of him 
is so opposite to that judgment, that I discredit 
their testimony. The question at issue betwixt us 
is, shall we admit the testimony of the apostles, 
upon the application of principles founded on ob- 
servation, and as certain as is our experieuce of 
human affairs? Or shall we reject that testimony 
upon the application of principles that are alto- 
gether beyond the range of observation, and as 
doubtful and imperfect in their nature, as is our ex- 
perience of the counsels of Heaven ? In the first 
argument there is no assumption. We are compe- 
lerd to judge of the behaviour of man in given 
circumstances. This is a subject completely ac- 
cessible to observation. The second argument is 
founded upon assumption entirely. We are not 
competent to judge of the conduct of the Almighty 
in given circumstances. Here we are precluded, 
by the nature of the subject, fi-om the benefit of 
observation. There is no antecedent experience 
to guide or to enlighten us. It is not for man to as- 
sume what is right, or proper, or natural for the 
Almighty to do. It is not in the mere spirit of pie- 
ty that we say so ; it is in the spirit of the soundest 
experimental philosophy. The argument of the 
Christian is precisely what the maxims of Lord 
Bacon would dispose us to acquiesce in. The ar- 
gument of the infidel is precisely that argument 
'^vhich the same inajcim.s would dispose us to reject ; 



■145 

mid when put by the side of the Christian argu- 
mentj it appears as crude and as unphilosophical, 
as do the ingenious speculations of the schoolmen, 
when set in opposition to the rigour, and evidence, 
and precision, which reign in every department of 
modern science* 

171. The application of Lord Bacon's philoso- 
phy to the study of external nature was a happy 
epoch in the history of physical science. It is not 
long since this application has been extended to 
the study of moral and intelliectual phenomena. 
All that we contend for is, that our subjects should 
have the benefit of the same application ; and Ave 
count it hard, while, in every other department of 
inquiry>a respect for truth is found sufficient to re- 
press tlie appetite for s\ stem-building, that theol- 
ogy, the loftiest and most inaccessible of all the 
sciences, should still remain infected with a spirit 
so exploded, and so unphilosophical ; and that the 
fancy? and theory, and unsupported speculation, so 
current among the Deists and demi-infidels of the 
day, should be held paramount to the authority of 
facts, which have come down to us with a weight 
of evidence and testimony, that is quite unexam- 
pled in the history of ancient times. 

172. What is science^ but a record of observed 
phenomena, grouped together according to certain 
points of resemblance, which have been suggested 
by an actual attention to the phenomena them- 
selves ? We never think of questioning the existence 
of the phenomena, after we have demonstrated the 
genuineness and authenticity of the record. After 
this is demonstrated, the singular or unexpected 
nature of the phenomena is not suffered to weaken 
their rredibilitv,— a credibility wWeh rai^ milr he 
18 



146 

destroyed by the aatliorily of our own per&oiiai 
observatioR, or some other record possessed of 
equal or superior pretensions. But in none of the 
inductive sciences is it m the power of a student to 
verify every thing by his own personal observa- 
tion. He must put up with the observations of 
otliers, brought home to the convictions of his own 
mind by creditable testimony. In the science of 
geologyj this is eminently the case. In a science 
of such extent, our principles must be in part found- 
ed upon the observations of others, transmitted to 
us from a distant country. And in a science, the 
processes of which are so lengthened in point of 
time, our principles should also in part be founded on 
tiie observations of others, transmitted to us from a 
remote antiquity. Any observations of our own 
ii]'e so limited, both in point of space and of time, , 
that we never think of opposing their authority to 
the evidence which is laid before us. Our whole 
attention. is directed to the validity of the record ; 
mid the moment that this validity is established, 
we hold it incumbent upon us to submit our minds 
to the entire and unmodified impression of the tes- 
timony contained in it. Now, all that we ask is^ 
that the same process of investigation be observed 
in theology, which is held to be so sound and so 
legitimate in other sciences. In a science of such 
exteiit, as to embi-ace the wide domain of moral 
and iiilelligent nature, we feel the littleness of that 
rariire to which our own personal observations are 
coFifaied. We shall be glad not merely of the in- 
formai^on ttansmitted to us from a distant country, 
biit of the authentic information transmitted to us 
hv any other order of beings, in some distant and 
unknown part of the creatio]}. In a science, too, 
which has ioi its o'^ject the lengthened processesof 



147 

Jhe divine administration, we sliould like if any re- 
cord of past times could enable us to extend our 
observations beyond the limits of our own epheme- 
ral experience ; and if there are any events of a 
former age possessed of such a peculiar and deci- 
sive character, as would help us to some satisfac- 
tory conclusion in the greatest and most interesting 
of the sciences. 

173- On a subject so much above us and beyond 
us, we would never think of opposing any precon- 
ceptions to the evidence of history. We would 
maintain the humihty of the inductive spirit. We 
would (fast about for facts, and events, and appear- 
ances. We would pier our mmds as a blank sur- 
face to every thing that came to them, supported 
by unexceptionable evidence. It is not upon the 
nature of the facts themselves, that we would pro- 
nounce upon their credibihty, but upon the nature 
of that testimony by v/hich they were supported. 
Our whole attention would be directed to the au- 
thority of the record. After this was established, 
vre would surrender our whole understanding to its 
contents. We would school down every antipathy 
within uSj, and disown it as a childish affection, un- 
worthy of a philosopher who professes to follow 
truth through all the disgusts and discouragements 
which surround it. There are men of splendid 
reputation in our enlightened circles, who never 
attended to this speculation, and who annex to the 
gospel of Christ nothing else than ideas of supersti- 
tion and vulgarity. In braving their contempt, we 
would feel ourselves in the best element for the dis^ 
play and exercise of the philosophical temper. We 
would rejoice in the omnipotence of truth, and an^ 
ticipate, in triumph, the victory which it must 
itccompli^h over tbe pride of science and the fas- 



148 

tidiousness of literature. It would not be tb^ 
enthusiasm of a visionary which would support us, 
but the inward working of the very same principle 
which sustamed Galileo, when he adhered to the 
result of his experiments, and Newton^ when he 
opposed his measurements and observations to the 
tide of prejudice he had to encounter from the pre- 
Tr -hiig taste and philosophy of the times. 

174. We conceive, that inattention to the above 
pr; pies has led many of the most popular and 
resp cted writers in the Deistical controversy to 
inuoduce a great deal of discussion that is foreign 
to !^ie merits of the question altogether ; and in this 
wav the attention is often turned away froxn the 
po;nt in which the main strength of the argument 
lies. An infidel, for example, objects against one 
of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. To repel 
the objection, the Christian conceives it necessary 
to vindicate the reasonableness of that doctrine, 
and to shew how consistent it is with all those an- 
tecedent conceptions which we derived from the 
light of natural rehgion. All this we count super- 
fluous. It is imposing an unnecessary task upon 
ourselves. Enough for us to have established the 
authority of the Christian revelation upon the 
ground of its historical evidence. All that remains 
IS to submit our minds to the fair interpretation of 
the Scriptures. Yes ; but how do you dispose of 
the objection drawn from the light of natural reli- 
gion ? In precisely the same way that we would 
dispose of an objection drawn from some specula- 
tive S3'stem, against the truth of any physical fact 
that has been well estabhshed by observation or 
testimony. We would disown the system, and op-» 
pose the obstinacy of the fact to all the elegancy 
^nd ingenuity of the speculation. 



149 

175xWe are sensible that this is not enough to 
satisfy a numerous class of very sincere and well 
disposed Christians. There are many of this de- 
scription, who, antecedent to the study of the 
Christian revelation altogether, repose a very strong- 
confidence in the ligiit of natural religion, and 
think that, upon the mere strength of its evidence, 
they can often pronounce with a considerable de- 
gree of assurance on the character of the divine 
administration. To such as these something more 
is necessary than the external evidences on which 
Christianity rests. You must reconcile the doc- 
trines of Christianity with those previous concep- 
tions which the light of nature has given them ; and 
a great deal of elaborate argument is often expend* 
cd in bringing about this accommodation. It is, of 
course, a work of greater difficulty, to make Chris- 
tians of this description of people, though, in point 
of fact, this difficulty has been overcome, in a way 
the most masterly and decisive, by one of the 
soundest and most piiilosophical of our theolo- 
gians. 

176. To another description of Christians, this 
attempt to reconcile the doctrines of Christianity 
Avith the light of natural religion is superfluous. 
Give them historical evidence for the truth of 
Christianity, and all that natural religion may have 
taught tliem will fly like so many visionary phan- 
toms before the liglit of its overbearing authority. 
With them the argument is reduced to a narrower 
compass. Is the testimony of the apostles and 
first Christians sufficient to establish the credibility 
of the facts which are recorded in the New Testa- 
ment ? The question is made to rest exclusively 
on the character of this testimony, and the circun> 



150 

stances attending it, and no antecedent theology ©f 
their own is sufl'ered to mingle with the investiga- 
tion. If the historical evidence of Christianity is 
found to be conclusive, they conceive the investi- 
gation to be at an end ; and that nothing, remains 
on their part, but an act of unconditional submis- 
sion to all its doctrines. 

177. Though it might be proper, in the present 
state of opinion, to accommodate to both these cas- 
es, yet vtre profess ourselves to belong to the latter 
description of Christians. We hold by the total 
insufficiency of natural religion to pronounce upon ■ 
the intrinsic merits of any revelation, and think 
that the authority of every revelation rests exclu- 
sively upon its external evidences, and upon suck 
marks of honesty in the composition itself as would 
up ply to a: '7 human performance. We rest this 
opinion, not upon any fanatical expression of the 
ignorance Of man, or how smful U is for a weak 
and guilty mortal to pronounce upon the counsels 
of heaven, and the laws of the divine administra- 
tion ; we disown this presumption, not merely be- 
cause it is sinful, but because we conceive it to be 
nnphilosophical, and precisely analogous to that 
theorising a priori spirit, which the wisdom of Ba- 
con has banished from aH the schools of philosophy. 

178. For the satisfaction of the first class, we 
refer them to that argument which has been prose- 
cuted with so much ability and S!iccess by Bishop 
Butler, in his Analogy of Natural and Revealed 
Religion. It is not so much the object of this au- 
thor to found any positive argument on the accord- 
ancy which subsists between tlie processes of the 
T^ivine administration in nature, and the processes 
ascribed to God by revelation, as to repel the argu- 
ment ^omiaed upon their ^^upposcd discerdanc}^- 



151 

To one of the second class, the argument of Bishop 
Butler is not called for ; but as to one of the first 
class, we can conceive nothing more calculated to 
quiet his diificulties. He beheves a God, and he 
must therefore believe the character and existence 
of God to be reconcileable with all that he oi>serves 
in the events and phenomena around him. He 
questions the claims of the New Testament to be a 
revelation from heaven ; because he conceives, that 
it ascribes a plan and an economy to the Supreme 
Beiug which are unworthy of his character. We 
offer no positive solution of this difficulty. We 
profess ourselves to be too little acquainted with 
the charactM- of God; and that in this httle corner 
of his works, we see not far enough to offer any 
decision on the merits of a government, which em- 
braces worlds, and reaches to eternity. We think 
we do enough, if we give a sufficiency of external 
proof for the New Testament being a true and au^ 
thentic message from heaven ; and that therefore 
nothing remains for us, but to attend and to submit 
to it. But the argument of Bishop Butler enables 
ns to do still more than this. It enables us to sav, 
that the very thing objected against in Christianity 
exists in nature ; and that therefore the same God 
who is the author of nature, may be the author of 
Christianity. We do not say that any positive 
evidence can be founded upon this analogy. But 
in as far as it goes to repel the objection, it is trl- 
imiphant. A man has no right to retain his theism, 
if he rejects Christianity upon difficulties to which 
natural religion is equally liable. M Christianity 
tells us, that the guilt of a father has brought suf- 
fering and vice upon his posterity, it is what we see 
exemplified in a thousand instances amongst the 
f^amilies around v.%* If it tells us, tliat the innocent 



152 

imve suffered for the guilty, it is nothing more than 
what all history and all observation have made per- 
fectly familiar to us. If it tells us of one portion 
of the human race being distinguished by the sove- , 
reign will of the Almighty for superior knowledge^ 
or superior privileges, it only adds one inequality 
more to the many inequailities which we perceive 
overy day in the gifts of nature, of fortune, and of 
providence. In short, without entering into all the 
details of that argument, which Butler has brought 
forward in a way so masterly and decisive, there is 
not a single impeachment which can be offered 
against the God of Christianity, that may not, if 
consistently proceeded upon, be offered against the 
God of Nature itself; If the one be unworthy of 
God, the other is equally so ; and if, in spite of 
these difficulties, you still retain the conviction, that 
there is a God of Nature, it is not fair or rational 
to suffer them to outweigh all that positive evidence 
and testimony, which have been adduced for prov- 
ing that the same God is the God of Christianity 
also. 

179. If Christianity be still resisted, it appears 
to us that the only consistent refuge is Atheism. 
The same pecuharities in the dispensation of the 
gospel, which lead the infidel to reject it as unwor- 
thy of God, go to prove, that nature is unworthy of 
him, and land us in the melancholy conclusion, 
that whatever theory can be offered as to the 
mysterious origin and existence of the things which 
be, they are not under the dominion of a supreme 
and intelligent mind. Nor do we look upon Athe- 
ism as a more hopeless species of infidehty than 
Deism, unless in so far as it proves a more stubborn 
disposition of the heart to resist every religious 
conviction. Viewed purely as an intellectuaJ sub- 



153 

j^ct; we look upon the mind of an Atheist, as in a 
better state of preparation for the proofs of Chris- 
tianity than the mind of a Deist. The one is a 
blank surface, on which evidence may make a fair 
impression, and where the finger of history may in- 
scribe its credible and well-attested information. 
The other is occupied with pre-cdnceptions. It 
will not take what history offers to it. It puts itself 
into the same unphilosophical posture, in which the 
mind of a prejudiced Cartesian opposed its theory 
of the heavens to the demonstrations and measure-^ 
ments of Newton. The theory of the Deist upoa 
a subject, where truth is stilf more inaccessible, 
and speculation still more presumptuous, sets him 
to resist the only safe and competent evidence that 
can be appealed to. What was originally the evi" 
dence of observation, and is now transformed into 
the evidence of testimony, comes down to us in a 
sseries of historical documents, the closest and most 
consistent that all antiquity can furnish. It is the 
unfortunate theory which forms the grand obstacle 
to the admission of the Christian miracles, an4 
which leads the Deist to an exhibition of himself 
so unphilosophical, as that of trampling on the 
soundest laws of evidence, by bringing a historical 
fact under the tribunal of a theoretical principle. 
The deistical speculation of Rousseau, by which he 
neutralised the testimony of the first Christians, is 
as complete a transgression against the temper and 
principles of true science, as a category of Aris* 
totle when employed to overrule an experiment in 
chemistry. But however this be, it is evident, that 
Housseau would have given a readier reception to 
the gospel history, had his mind not been pre-occu- 
pied with the speculation ; and the negative state of 
jLtheism would have been more favorable to the 



1S4 

admission of those facts, which are connected witli 
the origin and estaWishment of our rehgion in the 
^orld. 

180. This suggests the way in which the evi- 
dence for Christinnity should be carried home to 
the mind of an Atheist. He sees nothing in the 
phenomena around him, that can warrant him to 
beheve in the existence of a living and inteUigent 
principle which gave birth and movement to all 
things. He does not say that he would refuse cre- 
dit to the existence of God upon sufficient evidence, 
but he saysj that there are not such appearancen 
of design in nature, as to supply him with that evi- 
dence. He does not deray the existence of God to 
be a possible truth ; but he affirms, that while there 
is nothing before him but the consciousness of what 
passes within, and the observation of what passes 
without, it remains an assertion destitute of proof, 
and can have no more effect upon his conviction 
than any other nonentity of the imagination. 
There is a mighty difference between not proven and 
disproven. We see nothing in the argument of 
the Atiieists, which goes f^irther than to estabhsh 
the former sentence upon the question of God's ex- 
istence. It is altogether an arg iment ah ignoran- 
Ha ; and the same ignorance which restrains them 
from asserting in positive terms that God exists^ 
equally restrains them from asserting in positive 
terms that God does not exist. The assertion may 
be offered, that in some distant regions of the crea- 
tion, there are tracts of space which, instead of 
being occupied like the tracts around us with suns 
and planetary systems, teem only with animated 
beings, who, without being supported like us on the 
&m surface of a world, have the power of sponta- 
neous movements in free spaces. We cannot say 



155 

tliat the assertion is not true, but we can say that 
it is not proven. It carries in it no positive char- 
acter either of truth or falsehood, and may there- 
fore be admitted on appropriate and satisfying 
evidence- But till that evidence comes, the mind 
is in a state entirely neutral ; and such we conveive 
to be the neutral state of the Atheist, as to what he 
holds to be the unproved assertion of the existence 
of God. 

181. To the neutral mind of tlie Atheist, then^ 
unfurnished as it is with any previous conception^ 
we offer the historical evidence of Christianity. 
We do not ask him to presume the existence of 
God. We ask him to examine the miracles of the 
New Testament merely as recorded events, and to 
admit no otlier principle into the investigation, than 
those which are held to be satisfying and decisive, 
on any other subject of written testimony. The 
sweeping principle upon which Rousseau, filled 
with his own assumptions, condemned the historical 
evidence for the truth of the gospel narrative, can 
have no influence on the blank and unoccupied 
mind of an Atheist. He has no presumptions upon 
the subject ; for to his eye the phenomena of 
nature sit so loose and unconnected with that intel- 
ligent Being, to whom they have been referred as 
their origin, that he does not feel himself entitled, 
from these phenomena, to ascribe any existence, 
any character- any attributes, or any method of 
iidministration to such a Being. Ht^ is therefore in 
the last possible condition for submitting his under- 
Standing to the entire impression of theliistoricnl evi- 
dence. These diiliculties which perplex the Deists, 
wlio cannot recognize in the God of the New Tes- 
tament the same features and the same princi]>!os 
in which they have invtsle^f tlie God of Nature, 



ate no difficulties to him. He has no God of Ncfc- 
ture to confront with that.i'eal though invisible 
power which lay at the bottom of those astonishing 
miracles, on which history has stamped her most 
authentic characters. Though the power which 
presided there should be an arbitrary, an unjust, or 
a mahgnant being, all this may startle a Deist, but 
it will not prevent a consistent Atheist from acqui- 
escing in any legitimate inference, to which the 
miracles of the gospel, viewed in the simple light of 
historical facts, may chance to carry him. He 
cannot bring his antecedent information into play 
upon this question. He professes to have no ante- 
cedent information on the subject ; and this sense 
of his entire ignorance, which lies at the bottom of 
his Atheism, would expunge from iiis mind all that 
is theoretical, and make it the passive recipient of 
every thing which observation oiTers to its notice, 
or which criedible testimony has brought down to it 
of the history of past ages. 

182. What then, we ask, does the Atheist make 
of the miracles of the New Testament ? If he 
questions their truth, he must do it upon grounds 
that are purely historical. He is precluded from 
every other ground by the very principle on whicli 
he has rested his Atheism 5 and we therefore upon 
the strength of that testimony which has been al- 
ready exhibited, press the admission of thei^e mira- 
cles as facts. If there be nothing, then, in the or- 
dinary phenomena of nature, to infer a God, do 
these extraordinary phenomena supply him with no : 
argument? Does a voice from heaven make n€C^ 
impression upon him ? And we have the best evi- 
dence which history can furnish, that such a voice 
was uttered ; " This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." We have the evidence of 



157 

fact, for the existence of that very Eeirlg from 
whom the voice proceeded, and the evidence of a 
thousand facts, a power superior to nature ; because^, 
on the impulse of a vohtion, it did counteract her 
laws and processes, it allayed the wind, it gave sight 
to the blind, health to the diseased, and at the utte- 
rance of a voice, it ga;ve life to the dead. The os- 
tensible agent in all these v/onderful proceedings are 
not only credentials of his power, but he gave such 
credentials of his honesty, as dispose our under- 
.standing to receive his explanation of them. We 
do not avail ourselves of ^riy other principle thart 
what an Atheist will acknowledge. He understands 
as well as we do, the natural signs of veracity, which 
lie in the tone, the manner, the countenance, the 
high moral expression of worth and benevolence, 
and^ above all, ia that firm and undaunted constan- 
cy, which neither contem.pt, nor poverty, nor death, 
could sliift from any of its positions. All these 
claims upon our belief, were accumulated to an un- 
exampled degree in the person of Jesus of Nazareth 5 
and when we couple with them his undoubted mira- 
cles, and the manner in which his own personal ap- 
pearance was followed up by a host of witnesses^ 
who, after a catastrophe which would have proved 
a death-blow to any cause of imposture, offered 
themselves to the eye of the public, with the same 
powers, the same evidence, and the same testimony, 
it seems impossible to resist his account of the in- 
visible principi(*j which gave birth and movement to 
the wliole of this wonderful transaction. Whatever 
Atheism we may have founded on the common phe- 
nomena around iis, heie is a new phenomenon which 
demands our attention, the testimony of a man who, 
ifj addition to evidciico of houestv, more ^'aried and 
14 



158 

more satisfying than were ever offered by a brother 
of the species, had a voice from the clouds, and the 
power of working miracles, to vouch for him. We 
do not think, that the account which this man gives 
of himself can be viewed either with indifference or 
distrust, and the account is most satisfying. " I pro- 
ceeded forth, and came from God.'' " He whom/ 
God hath sent speaketh the words of God.'' " Even 
as the Father said unto me, so I speak.'' He had 
elsewhere said that God was his Father. The exis- 
tence of God is there laid before us, by an evidence 
altogether distinct from the natural argument of the 
schools, and it may therefore be admitted in spite 
of the deficiency of that argument. From the same 
pure and unquestionable source we gather our infor- 
mation of his attributes. " God is tnie.^' ^ God is 
a spirit." He is omnipotent, ^•for with God all 
things are possible." He is intelligent, *^ for he 
Icnoweth what things we have need of.'' Me sees all 
things, and he directs all things, for ^^ the very hairs 
of our head are numbered," and ^' a sparrow falletli 
not to the ground without his permission.-' 

183. The evidences of the Chrislsaii religion are 
suited to every species of infidelity. We do not ask 
the Atheist to furnish himself with aay pi-evioos 
conception. We ask him to come as he i^j and^^ 
upon the strength of his own favourite principle;^ 
viewing it as a pure intellectual qaestion, and ab- 
stracting from the more unmanageable tendeiacies 
of the heart and temper. We conceive his under- 
standing to be in a high state of preparation for 
taking in Christianity, in a fair, purer, and more 
scriptural form, than can be expected from those 
whose minds are tainted and pre-occupied vflih their-. 
former speculations. 



159 

184. The remainder of this article sliali be devot- 
ed to the illustration of a very plain but a very im- 
portant proposition, viz. That, after having esta- 
blished the New Testament to be a message from 
God, it behoves us to make an entire and uncondi- 
tional surrender of our minds, to all the duty and 
to all the information which it sets before us. 

185. There is, perhaps, nothing more thoroughly 
beyond the cognizance of the human faculties, than 
the truths of rehgion and the ways of that mighty 
and invisible Being who is the object of it ; and yet 
nothing, we will venture to say, has been made the 
subject of more hardy and adventurous speculation. 
We make no allusion at present to Deists, who re- 
ject the authority of the New Testament, because 

the plan and the dispensation of the Almighty, which 
is recorded there, is different from that plan and 
that dispensation which they have chosen to ascribe 
to him. We speak of Christians, who profess to 
admit the authx)rity of this record, but who have 
tainted the purity of their profession by not acting 
upon its exclusive authority; who have mingled their 
own thoughts and their own fancy with its informa- 
tion, who instead of repairing, in every question and 
in every difiiculty, to the principle of " What read- 
est thou," have abridged the sovereignty of this 
principle, by appealing to others, of which we un- 
dertake to make out tlie incompetency ; who, in 
addition to the word of God, talk also of the reason 
of the thing, or the standard of orthodoxy; and 
have in fact brought down the Bible from the high 
place which belongs to it, as the only tribunal to 
which the appeal should be made, or from which the 
decision should be looked for. 

186. But it is not merety among partizans or the 
advocates of a system^ that we meet with this inr 



160 

difierence to the authority of what is written. It 
lies at the bottom of a great deal of that looseness, 
both in practice and speculation, which we meet 
with every day in society, and which we often 
hear expressed in famihar conversation. Whence 
that list of maxims which are so indolently conceiv- 
ed, but which, at the same time, are so faitiifuUy 
proceeded upon ? " We have all our passions and 
infirmities; but we have honest hearts, and that 
will make up for them. Men are not all cast in 
the same mould. God will not call us to task too 
rigidly for our foibles, at least this is our opinion ; 
and God can never be so unmerciful, or so unjust, 
as to bring us to a severe and unforgiving tribunal 
for the mistakes of the understanding.'' Now, it is 
not hcentiousness in general, which we are speak- 
ing against. It is against that sanction which it 
appears to derive from the self-formed maxims of 
him who is guilty of it. It is against the principle, 
that either an error of doctrine, or an indulgence 
of passion, is to be exempted from condemnation, 
because it has an opinion of the mind to give it 
countenance and authority. What we complain 
©f is, that a man no sooner sets himself forward 
and says, " this is my sentiment,'' than he con- 
ceives that all culpability is taken away from the 
error, either of practice or speculation, into which 
he has fallen ; the carelessness with which the 
opinion has been formed, is of no account in the 
estimate. It is the mere existence of the opinion, 
which is plead in vindication ; and under the author- 
ity of our maxim^ and our mode of thinkings every 
man conceives himself to have a right to his own 
way and his own peculiarity. 

187. Now this might he all very j5nr, were there 
no Bible and no revelation in existence. But it is 



MOt fairj that all this looseness, and all this variel v ^ 
should be still iioating in the world; in the face of 
an authoritative communication from God himself* 
Had no message come to us from the fountain head 
of truth, it were natural enough for every individ- 
ual mind to betake itself to its own speculation. 
But a message has come to us, bearing on its fore- 
head every character of authenticity, and is it 
right now, that the question of our faith, or of our 
duty, should be committed to the capricious varia- 
tions of this man's taste or of that man's fancy ? 
Our maxim and our sentiment! God has put au 
authoritative stop to aU this. He has spoken, and 
the right or the liberty of speculation no longer I'e- 
niains to us. The question now is, not "What 
thinkest thou ?" In the days of Pagan antiquity, no 
other question could be put, and the wretched de- 
lusions and idolatries of that period let us see what 
kind of answer the human mind is capable of mak- 
ing, when left to its own guidance, and its own 
authority. But we call ourselves Christians, and 
profess to receive the Bible as tiie directory of our 
faith, and the only question in which we are con- 
cerned, is, " What is written in the law ? how read- 
est thou ?'' 

188. But there is a way of escaping from this 
conclusion. No man calling himself a Christian, 
will ever disown in words the authority of the 
Bible. Whatever be counted the genuine inter- 
pretation, it must be submitted to. But in the act 
of coming to this interpretation, it will be observed, 
there is room for the unwarrantable principles 
which we are attempting to expose. The business 
of a scripture critic is to give a fair representation 
#f the sense of all its passages as they exist in the 
"14* ■ 



original. Now, this is a process which requires 
some iiivestigatior. and it is during the time that 
this process is carrying on^ tliat the tendencies and 
antecedent opinions of the mind are suffered to 
mislead the enquirer from the true principles of the 
business in wliich he is employed. The mind and 
meaning of the author, who is translated, is purely 
a question of language, and should be decided up« 
on no other principles than those of grammar or 
philolog}'. Now, what we complain of is, that while 
this principle is recognised and acted upon in ev- 
ery other composition which has come down to us 
from aiitiquitvj it has been most glaringly departed 
from in the case of the Bible; that the meaning of 
its author, instead of being made singly and entirely 
a question of grammar, has been made a question 
of metaphysics, or a question of sentiment ; that 
instead of the argument resorted to being, such 
must be the rendering from the structure of the 
language, and the import and significancy of its 
phrases, it has been, such must be the rendering 
from the analogy of the faith, the reason of the 
thing, the character of the Divine mind, and the 
wisdom of ail his dispensations. And whether this 
argument be formally insisted upon or not, we 
have still to complain, tliat in reality it has a most 
decided influence on the understanding of many a 
Christian; and in this way, the creed which exists 
in his mind, instead of being a fair transcript of the 
New Testament, is the result of a compromise 
which has been m.ade betwixt its auihorative de- 
cisions and the speculations of his own fancy. 

189. What is the reason v/hy there is so much 
niore unanimity among critics and grammarians: 
about the sense of any ancient author, tlfan about 
the sense of the New Testament. Bec^.usa the on3" 



W3 

IS made purely a question of criticism : Tlic oilier 
has been coiuplic^ited witli the uncertain fancies of 
a daring and presumptuous theolosfy. Could v/e 
only dismiss these fancies, sit down like a school-boy 
to his task, and look upo)) the study of divinity as a 
mere work of translation, then we would expect the 
game unanimity among Christians that we meet with 
among scholars knd iitei'ati about the system of 
Epicurus or philosopliy of Aristotle. But here hes 
tht^ distinction betwixt the two cases. When we 
make out^ by a critical examination of the Greek of 
Aristotle, that such Avas liis meaning, and such his 
philosophy, the result carries no authority with ity 
and our mind retains the congenial liberty of its own 
^^peculations. But if we make out by a critical 
examination of the Greek of St. Paul, tliat such is 
the theology of the New Tiv.tament, we are bound 
to submit to this theolog}^- and our minds must 
surrender every opinion, iiowever dear to them. It 
is quite in vain to talk of the m}'SteriousHess of the 
subject, as being the cause of tlie want of unanimity 
among Christians. It may be mysterious, in refer- 
ence to ourforiuer conceptions. It maybe myste- 
rious in the utter impossibility of reconciling ]t with 
our own assumed fancies, and self-formed principles. 
It maybe mysterious in the difficulty whicli we feei 
in comprehending the manner of the doctrine, when 
we ouglit to be satislied with the authoritative reve- 
]a,tion wdiich has l)een made to us of its existence 
i*nd its truth. But if we could only abandon all our 
former conceptions, if we felt tliat our business was 
to submit to the oracle of God, and that we are not 
called upon to effect a reconciliation betwixt a re- 
vealed doctrine of the Bible, and an assumed or 
excogitated principle of our own ; — then we are 
fetisfied, that we could find the language of the 



164 

Testament to have as much clear, and preciscj avicl 
distaictive simphcity, as the language of any sage 
or phiiosopner that has come down to our tune. 

190* Could we only get it reduced to a mere ques- 
tion of language, we siiould look at no distant period 
for the establishment of a pure and unanimous 
Chrisiiamty in the world. But, no. While the 
mind and tlie reasoning of any philosopher is col- 
lected from his words, and these words tried as to 
their import and signuicancy upon the appropriate^ 
principles of criticism, the mind and the reasoning 
of the spirit of God is not collected upon the same 
pure and competent principles of investigation. In 
order to know the mind of the Spirit, the communi- 
cations of the Spirit, and the expression of these 
communications in written language, should be con- 
sulted. These are the only data upon which the 
enquiry should be instituted. But, no. instead of 
learnmg the designs and character of the Almighty 
from hiS own mouth, we sit in judgment upon them,, 
and make our conjecture of what they sliould be^ 
take the precedenc\^ of his revelations of whixt they 
are. We do Him the same injustice that we do to 
an acquaintance, whose proceedings and whose in- 
tentions we venture to pronounce upon, while we 
reiuse him a hearing, or turn away from the letter 
in v/hich he explains himself. No wonder, then, at 
the want of unanimity among Christians, so long as 
the question of ^' w hat thinkest thou'' is made the 
principle of their creed, and, for the sake of criti- 
cism, they iiave committed themselves to the end- 
less caprices of the human intellect. Let the prin- 
ciple of" what thiiikest thou" be exploded, and that 
of " what readest thou'' be substituted in its place*. 
Let us take our lesson as the Almighty places it 
}^QXQ US; and^ instead of being the jiidge cf his 



165 

condact;^ be satisfied with the safer nrA humbler of- 
fice of being the interpreter of his language. 

191. Now this principle is not exclusively 9,ppli- 
cable to the learned. The great bulk of Christians 
liave no access to the Bible in its original languages ; 
but they have access to the common translation, and 
they may be satisfied by the concurrent testimony 
of the learned among the different sectaries of this 
country, that the translation is a good one. We do 
Hot contine the principle to critics and translators^ 
we press it upon all. We call upon them not to 
form their divinity by independent thinking, but to 
receive it by obedient reading, to take the words as 
they stand, and submit to the plain English of the 
scriptures which lie before them. It is the office of 
a translator to give a faithful representation of the 
original. Now that this faithful representation has 
been given, it is our part to peruse it 'vith care, and 
to take a fair aud a faithful impressK/n of it. It is 
our part to purify our understanding of all its previ- 
ous conceptions. We must bring a free and unoc- 
cupied mind to tlie exercise. It must not be the 
pride or the obstinacy of self formed opinions, or 
the haiiglit}?- independence of him, who thinl-.s he has 
reached the manhood of his unclerstandnig. We 
must bring with us the docility of a child, if we want 
to gain tb.e kingdom of heaven. It mi^st not be a 
partial, but an entire and unexcepted obedience. 
There must be no garbling of tliat which js entjre^ 
110 darkening of that which is luminous, no softening 
down of that which is authoritative or severe. The 
Bible will allow of no compromise. It professes to 
be the directory of our faith, and claims a total as- 
cendency over the souls and the nn/I:«rsvan(rmgs of 
men. It will enter into no composition with us or 
om\natural principles. It challenges tlie whole xnind 



166 

as its due, and it appeals to the truth of heaven for 
the high authority of its sanctions. " Whosoever 
addeth to, or taketh from, the words of this book, is- 
accursed/' is the absokite language in which it de- 
livers itself. This brings us to its terms. There is 
no way of escaping after this. We must bring every 
thought into the captivity of its obedience, and, as 
closely as ever lawyer stuck to his document or his 
extracts, must we abide by the rule and the doc- 
ti'ine which this authentic memorial of God sets 
before us. 

192. Now we hazard the assertion, that, with a 
number of professing Christians, there is not this 
imexcepted submission of the understanding to the 
authority of the Bible ; and that the authority of 
the Bible is often modified, and in some cases su- 
perseded by the authority of other principles. One 
of these principles is, the reason of the thing. We 
do not know if this principle would be at all felt or 
appealed to by the earliest Christians. They turned 
from dumb idols to serve the living and the true 
God. There was nothing in their antecedent theo* 
logy which they could have any respect for : Noth- 
ing which they could confi ont, or bring into compe^ 
tition with the doctrines of the New Testament. In 
these days, the truth as it is in Jesus came to the 
mind of its disciples, recommended' by its novelty, 
by its grandeur, by the power and recency of its 
evidences, and above all by its vast and evident su- 
periority over the fooleries of a degrading Pagan- 
ism. It does not occur to us, that men in these cir- 
cumstances would ever think of sitting in judgment 
over the mysteries of that sublime faith which had 
charmed them into an abandonment of their earlier 
jreligion. It rather strikes us, that they v/ould re^ 
greive them passively } that;, hke scholars who liadl 



167 

all to ]earn> tliey would take their lesson as tliey 
found it ; that the information of their teachers 
would be enougli for them ; and that the restless 
tendency of the human mind to speculation^ would 
for a time find ample enjoyment in the rich and 
splendid discoveries, which broke like a flood of 
light upon tlie world. But we are in different cir«^ 
cumstances. To us, these discoveries, rich and 
splencSd as they are, have lost the freshness of no- 
velty. The sun of righteousness, like the sun in the 
firmament, has become familiarized to us by posses- 
sion. In a few ages, the human mind deserted itS' 
guidance, and rambled as much as ever in quest of 
new speculations. It is true, that they took a juster 
aiiil a loftier flight since the days of Heathenism^ 
But it was only because they walked in the light of 
revelation. They borrowed of the New Testament 
witliout acknowledgment, and took its beauties and 
i*s truths to deck their own wretched fancies and self- 
constituted systems. In the process of time the 
delusion multiplied and extended. Schools were 
formed, and the way of the Divinity was as confi- 
dently theorized upon, as the processes of chemis- 
try, or the economy of the heavens. Universities 
were endowed, and natural theology took its place 
in the circle of the sciences. Folios were written^ 
and the respected luminaries of a former age pour- 
ed their it priori and ihe'iv d posteriori demonstrations 
on the >vorld. Taste, and sentiment, and imagiiia- 
tion, grew apace ; and every raw untutored princi- 
]>le which poetry could clothe in prettir^ess, or over 
wliich the hand of genius could throw the graces of 
^.ensibility and elegance, was erected into a principle 
of the divine government, and made to preside over 
the councils of the deity. In the mean time, the 
Bi!>le. which ought to su_persede all, was it^self super- 



168 

seded. It was quite in vain to Bay that it was the 
only authentic record of an actual embassy which 
God had sent into the world. It was quite in vain 
to plead its testimonies, its miracles^ and the unqueg* 
tionable fulfilment of its prophecies. These mighty 
claims must be over, and be suspended, till we have 
settled — what ? the reasonableness of its doctrines.^ 
We must bring the theology of God's ambassador 
to the bar of our self-formed theology. Th^ible, 
instead of being admitted as the directory of our 
faith upon its external evidences, must be tried upon 
(he merits of the work itself; and K our verdict be 
ikvourable, it must be brought in, not as a help to 
our ignorance, but as a corollary to our demorjstra^ 
tions. But is this ever done? Yes! by Dr. Sami*ei 
Clarke, and a whole host of followers and admirers* 
Their first step in the process of theological study^ 
is to furnish their minds with the principles of natu- 
ral theolog3% Christianity, before its external 
proofs are looked at or listened to, must be brought 
under the tribunal of those principles. All the diffi" 
cvdties which attach to the reason of the thing, or 
the fitness of the doctrines, must be formally dis- 
cussed, and satisfactorily got over. A voice was 
heard from heaven, saying of Jesus Christ, " This 
is my beloved son, hear ye him.'' The men of 
Galilee saw him ascend from the dead to the heavers 
which he now occupies. The men of Galilee gave 
their testim.ony ; and it is a testimony which stood 
the fiery trial of persecution in a former age, and 
of sophistry in this. And yet, instead of hearing 
Jesus Christ as disciples, they sit in authority over 
him as Judges. Instead of forming their divinity 
after the Bible, they try the Bible by their antece- 
dent divinity; and this book, with all its might}' 
train of e.vide.nces.mwst drivel in their a-ntic hampers. 



16t 

lill they have pronomiced sentence of admissioiiy 
when they have got its doctrines to agree with their 
own airy and unsubstantial speculations. 

193. We dot condemn the exercise of reason in 
matters of tlieology. It is the part of reason to 
form its concitssions, when it has data and evidences 
before it. But it is equally the part of reason to 
abstain from its conciusionsj when these evidences 
are wanting. Reason can judge of the external 
evidences for Christianity ; because it can discern 
the merits of human testimony ; and it can perceive 
the truth or the falsehood of such obvious creden- 
tials in the performance of a miracle, or the faliil- 
ment of a prophecy. , But reason is not entitled to 
sit in judgment over these internal evidences^ whicli 
many a presumptuous theologian lifts attempted to 
derive from the reason of the tliing, or from the 
agreement of the doi^trine with the fancied charac- 
ter and attributes of the Deity. One of the most 
useful exercises of reason is to ascertain its limitS;, 
and to keep within them 5 to abandon the field of 
conjecture, and to restrain, itself within that safe and . 
certain barrier which forms the boundar3'^of humaii 
experience. However humiliating you may con- 
ceive it, it is this tliat lies at the bottom of Lord 
Bacon's philosoph}/, and it is to this that moderi'i 
science is indebted for all her solidity and all her 
triumphs. Why does philosopliy flourish in oar 
days? Because lier votaries have learned to ahnii- 
don their own creative speculations, and to submit 
to evidences, let her conclusions be as painful and 
as unpalatable as they will. Now all tliat we wai^t^ 
is to carry the same lesson and the r-anio pi inc i;;le to 
theology. Our buusiviess is not to guess, Init to lev^riu, 
After ve have established Christiaiiity to he tin v.w-- 
15 



' 176 

thentie message from God upon these historical 
grounds, — when the reason and experience of man 
entitle him to form his conchisions, — nothing re- 
mains for us, but an unconditional surrender of the 
mind to the subject of the message. We have a. 
right to sit in judgment over the credentials of hea-^ 
Yen^s ambassador, but we have no right to sit in 
judgment over the information he gives us. We 
have no right either to refine or to modify that in-: 
formation, ^ill we have accommodated it to our pre-< 
vious conceptions. It is very true, that if the truths 
which he delivered lay within the field of human 
observation, he brings himself under the tribunal of 
our antecedent knowledge. Were he to tell us, that 
the bodies of the planetary system moved in orbits 
^hich are purely circular, we would oppose to him 
the observations and measurements of astronomy. 
W^ere he to tell uSj^ that in winter the sun never 
shone, and that in summer no cloud ever darkened 
the brilliancy of his career, we would oppose to him 
the certain remembrances, both of ourselves and oC 
our whole neighbourhood. Were he to tell us, that 
we were perfect men, because we were free from 
passion, and loved our neighbours as ourselves, w© 
would oppose to him the history of our own lives^, 
and the deeply-seated consciousness of our own in-^ 
firmities. On all these subjects, we can confront 
him ; but when he brings truth from a quarter which 
no human eye ever explored ; when he tells us the 
mind of the Deity, and brings before us the counsels, 
of tliat invisible Being, whose arm is abroad upon 
all nations, and whose views reach to eternity, lie is. 
bey on 1 the ken of eye or of telescope, and we must 
siibaiit to hira. We have no iiiore right to sit in 
jtldgaient over his information, than v/e have to sit 



in 

iia judgment ©ver the information of any other visi«< 
tor who hghts upon our planet, from some distant 
and unknown part of the universe, and tells us what 
\vorlds roll in these remote tracts which are beyond 
the hmits of our astronomy, and how the Divmity 
peoples them with his wonders. Any previous con^ 
ceptions of ours are of no more value than the 
fooleries of an infant ; and should we offer to resist 
or modify upon the strength of our conceptions, we 
would be as unsound and as unphilosophical as ever 
schoolman was with his categories, or Cartesain with 
his whirlpools of ether. 

194. Let us go back to the first Christians of the 
Gentile world. They turned from dumb idols to 
^rve the living and the true God. They made a 
pimple and entire transition from a state as bad, if 
liot worse, than that of entire ignorance, to the 
Christianity of the New Testament. Their previ- 
ous conceptions, instead of helping them, behoved 
to be utterly abandoned ; nor was there that inters 
mediate step which so many of us think to be neces* 
sary, and which we dignify with the name of the 
rational theology of nature. In these days, this 
rational theology was unheard of; nor have we the 
slightest reason to beheve that they were ever initi- 
ated into its doctrines, before they were looked upon 
as fit to be taught the peculiarities of the gospel. 
They were translated at once from the absurdities 
of Paganism to that Christianity which has come 
down to us, in the records of evangelical history, 
and the epistles which their teachers addressed to 
them. They saw the miracles ; they acquiesced in 
them, as satisfying credentials of an inspired tea* 
oher ; they took the whole of their religion from his 
inontii J their faith came by Iiearing, and hearing by 



^lie words of a divine messenger. This was their 
process, and it ought to be ours. We do not see 
the miracles, but we see their reahty through the 
medium of that clear and unsuspicious testimony 
which has been handed down to us. We should 
admit them as the credentials of an embassy from 
God. We should take the whole of our religion from 
the records of this embassy ; and, renouncing the 
idolatry of our own self-formed conceptions, we 
should repair to that word, which was spoken to 
them that heard it, and transmitted to us by the 
instrumentality of written language. The question 
with them was. What hearest thou ? The question 
■with us IS, What readest thou ? They had their idols, 
and they turned away from them. We have our 
fancies, and we contend, that, in the face of an au- 
thoritative revelation from heaven, it is as glaring 
idolatry m us to adhere to these, as it would be were 
they spread out upon canvass, or chiseled into ma- 
terial form by the hands of a statuary. 

195. In the popular religions of antiquity, we see 
scarcely the vestige of a resemblance to that acade- 
mical theism which is delivered in our schools, and 
figures away in the speculations of our moralists* 
The process of conversion among the first Chris- 
tians v/as a very simple one. It consisted of an 
utter abandonment of their heathenism, and an en- 
tire submission to those new truths which came to 
them through the revelation of the gospel, and 
through it only. It was the pure theology of Christ 
and of his Apostles. That theology which struts 
in fancied demonstration from a professor's chair, 
formed no part of it. They listened as if they had 
all to learn ; we listen as if it was our office to judge., 
and to give tlie message of God iir^ due place and 



MS 

.{subordination among the principles which we had 
previously estabhshed. Now these principles were 
?:itterly unknown at the first publication of Chris- 
tianity. The Galatians, and Corinthians, and Thes- 
salonians, and Phihppians, had no conception of 
them. And yet, will any man say, that either Paul 
himself, or those who lived under his immediate 
tuition, had not enough to make them accomplished 
Christians, or that they fell short of our enlightened 
selves, in the wisdom which prepares for eternity, 
because they wanted our rational theology as a 
>stepping-stone to that knowledge which came, in 
pure and immediate revelation from the Son of God. 
The gospel was enough for them, and it should be 
enough for us also. Every natural or assumed prin- 
eiple which offers to abridge its supremacy, or even 
so much as to share with it in authority and direc- 
tion, should be instantly discarded. Every opinion 
in religion should be reduced to the question of — 
what readest thou ? and the Bible be acquiesced in^ 
and submitted to, as the alone directory of our faith, 
where we can get the whole will of God for the sal- 
vation of men. 

196. But is not this an enlightened age; and, 
since the days of the gospel, has not the wisdom of 
two thousand years accumulated upon the present 
generation ? has not science been enriched by dis- 
covery ? and is not theolgy one of the sciences ? 
Are the men of this advanced period to be restrain- 
ed from the high exercise of their powers? and, 
because the men of a remote and barbarous anti- 
quity lisped and drivelled in the infancy of their 
acquirements, is that any reason why we should be 
restricted, like so many school-boys, to the lessou 
that is set before us ? It is all true tfiat this is a very 
1-5^ 



174 

enlightened age, but on what field has it acquired sa 
flattering a distinction ? On the Held of experimente 
The human mind owes all its progr^/ss to the con- 
finement of its eflforts within the ss^Te and certain 
limits of observation, and to the severe restraint 
which it has imposed upon its speculative tendencies. 
Go beyond these limits^ and the human mind has 
not advanced a single inch by its own independent 
exercises. All the philosophy which has been rear- 
ed by the labour of successive ages, is the philoso- 
pliy of facts reduced to general laws, or brought 
under a general description from observed points of 
resemblance. A proud and a wonderfid fabric we 
do allow ; but we throw away the very instrument by 
which it was built the moment that we cease to ob- 
serve, and begin to theorize and excogitate. Tell 
us a single discovery, which has thrown a particle 
of light on the details of the divine administration. 
Tell us a single truth in the whole field of experi- 
mental science, which can bring us to the moral 
government of the Almighty by any other road than 
his own revelation. Astronomy has taken millions 
of suns and of systems within its ample domain; 
but the ways of God to man stand at a distance as 
inaccessible as ever. Nor has it shed so much as a 
glimmering over the councils of that mighty and 
invisible Being, who sits in high authority over all 
worlds. The boasted discoveries of modern sci- 
ence are all confined to that field, within which the 
sense of man can expatiate. The moment we go 
beyond this field they cease to be discoveries, and 
are the mere speculations of the fancy. The dis- 
coveries of modern science have, in fact, imparted 
a new energy to the sentiment in question. They * 
all ^serve to exalt the Deity, but tliev do not rontri^ 



175 

bate a single iota to the explanation of his purpose 
es. They make him greater, but they do not make 
him more comprehensible. He is more shrouded 
in m>stery than ever. It is not himself whom we 
see, it is his workmanship; and every new addition 
to its grandeur or to its variet}^, which pliilosopli}'^ 
opens to our contemplation, throws our understand- 
ing at a greater distance than before, from the mind 
and conception of the suhhme Architect. Instead 
of the God of a single world, we now see him pre- 
siding in all the majesty of his high attributes, over 
a mighty range of innumerable systems. To our 
little eye he is wrapt in more awful mysteriousness, 
and every new glimpse which astronomy gives us of 
the universe justifies, to the apprehension of our 
mind, that impassable barrier which stands hetweem 
the counsels of its Sovereign, and those fugitive 
beings who strut their evanescent hour in the hum- 
blest of its mansions. If this invisible Being would 
only break that mysterious silence in which he has 
wrapt himself, we feel that a single word from Iiis 
mouth would be worth a world of darkling specula- 
tions. Every new trmmph which the mind of man 
actiieves in the field of discovery, binds us more 
firmly to our Bible ; and by the very proportion in 
which philosophy multiplies the wonders of God, do 
we prize that book, in which the evidence of history 
has stamped the character of his authentic commu- 
nication. 

197. The course of the moon in the heavens has 
exercised astronomers for a long series of ages, 
and now that they are able to assign all the irregu- 
larities of its periods, it may be counted one of the 
most signal triumphs of modern science. Tiie 
question lay within the limits of tlie field of obser- 



i7G. 

vation. It was accessible to measurement^ and^ up-. 
oii the sure principles of calculation^ men of science 
liave brought forward the confident solution of a 
problem, the most difficult and trying that ever was 
submitted to the human intellect. But let it never 
be forgotteoj that those very maxims of philosophy 
which guided them so surely and so triumphantly 
witiiin the field of observation, also restrained them 
from stepping beyond it, and though none were 
more confident than they, whenever they had evi- 
dence and experiment to enlighten them, yet none 
were more scrupulous in abstaining to pronounce 
upon any subject, where evidence and experiment 
were wantmg. Let us suppose that one of their 
number, flusiied with the triumph of success, pass- 
ed on from the work of calculating the periods of 
the moon, to theories upon its chemical constitu- 
tion ; the former question lies within the field of* 
observation, the other is most thoroughly beyond 
it; and there is not a man, whose mind is disci- 
plined to the rigour and sobriety of modern science 
that would not look upon the theory with the same 
contempt, as if it were the dream of a poet, or the 
riuujsement of a school-boy. We have heard much 
of the moon, and of the volcanoes which blaze up- 
on its surface. Let us have incontestible evidence, 
that a falling stone proceeds from the eruption of 
one of these volcanoes, and the chemistry of the 
moon will receive more illustration from the ana- 
lysis of that stone, than from all the specLlations of 
ail the theorists, li brings the question in part 
ivithiu the limits of observation. It soon becomes 
a fair subject for the exercise of the true philoso- 
];liy. Tiie eye can nov/ see, and the hand can now 

*3ail:rnhho;l by the h^ 



177 

borious drudgery of experimental meu^ will be rer 
ceived as a truer document, than the theory of any 
philosopher, however ingenious, or however splen- 
'did. 

198. At the hazard of being counted whimsical, 
we bring forward the above as a competent illus- 
tration of the pnnciple which we are attempting to 
estabhsh. We do ail homage to modern science, 
nor do we dispute the loftiness of its pretensions. 
But we maintain, that however brilliant its career 
in those tracts of philosophy, where it has the light 
of observation to conduct it, the philosophy of ail 
that lies without the field of observation is as ob- 
scure and inaccessible as ever. We maintain, that 
to pass from the motions of the moon to an unau- 
thorised speculation upon the chemistry of its ma- 
terials, is a presumption disowned by philosophy. 
We ought to feel, that it would be a still more glar- 
ing transgression of all its maxims, to pass from 
the brightest discovery in the catalogue, to the 
-ways of that mysterious Being, whom no eye hath 
seen, and whose mind is capacious as infinity. The 
splendour and the magnitude of what we do know, 
can never authorise us to pronounce upon what we 
do not know; nor can we conceive a transition 
more ardent or more insurmountable, than to pass 
from the truths of natural science to a speculation 
on the details of God's administration, or the econ- 
omy of his moral government. We hear much of 
revelations from heaven. Let any one of these 
bear the evidence of an actual communication 
from God himself, and all the reasonings of all the 
theologians must vanish, and give place to the sub- 
stance of this communication. Instead of theorist 
ing upon the nature and properties of that divinie 



17a , # 

light which irradiates the throne of God, and cxisis^ 
at so immeasurable a distance from our faculties, 
let us pomt our eyes to that emanation, which ha^ 
actually come down to us. Instead of theorising 
upon the councils of the divine mind, let us go to 
that volume which lighted upon our world nearly 
two thousand years ago, and which bears the most 
authentic evidence, that it is the depository of part 
of tliese councils. Let us apply the proper instru-^ 
ment to this examination. Let us never conceive 
it to be a work of speculation or fancy. It is a 
pure work of grammatical analysis. It is an un- 
mixed question of language. The commentator 
who opens this book with the one hand, and car-^ 
ries his system in the other, has nothing to do with 
it. We admit of no other instrument than the vo^ 
cabulary and the lexicon. The man whom we 
look to is the scripture critic, who can appeal to 
his authorities for the import and significancy ef 
phrases, and whaiever be the strict result of hi^ 
patient and profound philology, we submit to it — * 
We call upon every enlightened disciple of Lord 
Bacon to approve the steps of this process, and to 
acKiiowledge, that the same habits of philosophis- 
ing to which science is indebted for all her elevation 
in tliose latter days, will lead us to cast down all 
our lofty imaginations, and bring every thought ii> 
to the captivity of the obedience of Christ. 

199. But something more remains to be done* 
The mmd may have discernment enough to acqui* 
esce in tiie speculative justness of a principle ; but 
it may not have vigour or consistency enough to 
put it into execution. Lord Bacon pointed out the 
inethod of true philosophising 5 yet in practice^ fe^ 



i79 

a|)andoned it, and his own physical investigatioMS 
maybe ranked among the most effectual specimens 
of that rash and unfounded theorising, which his 
own principles have banished from the schools of 
philosophy. Sir Isaac Newton completed in his 
own person the character of the true philosopher. 
He not only saw the general principle, but he obey- 
ed it. He both betook himself to the drudgery of 
observation, and he endured the pain which every 
inind must sufier in the act of renouncing its old 
liabits of conception. We call upon our readers to 
IiaVe manhood and philosophy euough to make a 
similar sacrifice. It is not enough, that the Bible be 
acknowledged as the only authentic source of infor- 
iTiation respecting the details of that moral economy, 
which the Supreme Being has instituted for the gov- 
ernment of the intelligent beings who occupy tliis 
globe. Its authenticity must be something more 
than acknowledged. It must be felt, and, in act and 
obedience, submitted to. Let us put them to the 
test. " Verily I say unto you," says our Saviour^ 
'^ unless a man shall be born again, he shall not en- 
ter into the kingdom of God." " By grace ye are 
saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it i$ 
the gift of God." " Justified freely by his grace 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus^ 
whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through 
faith in his blood." We need not multiply quota- 
tions ; but if there be any repugnance to the obvious 
truths which we have announced to the reader in 
the language of the Bible, his mind is not yet tutored 
to the philosophy of the subject. It may be in the 
way, but tlie linal result is not yet arrived at. It is 
still a slave' to the elegance or the plausibility of its 



180 

old speculations 5 and though its admits the princi- 
ple, that every previous opinion must give way to 
the supreme authority of an actual communication 
from Godj it wants consistency and hardihood to 
•'^viy the principle into accomplishment, (t. c.) 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 653 687 6 



